Iowa Workers' Compensation

Carl A. Nelson & Co. v. Sloan , No. 15-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 25, 2015), involves issues concerning causation and intervening cause as well as the payment of medical bills.  The district court upheld the commissioner's decision concerning causation, but did not allow payment of medical bills directly to claimant. Claimant suffered an injury to his back on August 15, 2011 and was returned to full duty work on August 24.  On October 30, 2011, claimant and a friend were moving go-kart frames into a trailer.  Claimant had a sudden onset of pain and numbness in the back and legs while doing this.  He subsequently had surgery and was found to be at MMI on January 14, 2013. At the arbitration level, the deputy concluded that the go-kart incident was an intervening and superseding cause for claimant's back problems and denied benefits.  On appeal, the commissioner reversed, finding that the greater weight of the evidence supported the finding that claimant's work injury was a

In Eaton Corp. v. Archer, No. 15-0255 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner addressed a claim where claimant developed carpal tunnel syndrome.  There was a dispute concerning causation and a dispute over whether claimant was able to return to substantially similar work.  The commissioner concluded that claimant's injury was related to his work activities, and concluded that claimant could not return to former work, given the continuing pain in his hands. Following the injury, claimant missed work because of the pain in his hands and was discharged by the employer.  On appeal, the primary issue was the healing period issue.  The employer claimed that claimant could return to his former work, and cited their IME physician, Dr. Hsu, in support.  Claimant countered with the IME of Dr. Gammel.  The agency concluded, based on the opinion of Dr. Gammel and claimant's testimony that he could not return to substantially similar work. The district court affirmed and on appeal t

In Harrison v. Greenfield Manor, No. 15-0223 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner awarded claimant a 5% industrial disability award, based on the fact that the doctors who had examined claimant and found that his injury was minor and did not lead to restrictions.  The district court and court of appeals affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.

In Tameklo v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 15-0222 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner addressed a situation where claimant suffered a shoulder injury and later developed avascular necrosis.  The commissioner concluded that the avascular necrosis was related to work and awarded healing period benefits. Tyson challenged the finding that claimant's avascular necrosis arose out of employment. The first two physicians that saw claimant did not conclusively indicate one way or another whether the injury was related to employment.  Claimant's IME physician, Dr. Bansal, concluded that the avascular necrosis was related to employment, noting that claimant did not have avascular necrosis prior to the surgery, and that the shoulder that was injured was the only location where claimant had avascular necrosis.  The district court reversed the decision of the commissioner, but on appeal, the Court of Appeals reinstated the decision of the commissioner,finding that the commissioner's