Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Wehde v. Georgia Pacific and Second Injury Fund , No. 15-0045 (Iowa App. No. 15-0045), the Court of Appeals addressed an issue where claimant had filed an original action against the employer and Fund and had prevailed and later filed a review reopening action.  In this action, claimant prevailed against the employer, and received an additional award of 8% for her left leg, but no additional impairment for her right leg and no additional industrial disability benefits from the Fund.  The agency concluded that there was an increased loss of earning capacity as a result of her additional loss of use to the left knee.  The agency assessed the costs for the left leg to the employer, ordered shared costs for the right leg, and costs relating to the loss of earning capacity were assessed to claimant. The district court affirmed and the case was appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded that although the treating doctor had not imposed restrictions in the original action, the IME doctor h

In Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Teah , No. 15-1776 (April 27, 2016), the Court of Appeals addressed a situation where claimant developed a shoulder injury as a result of repetitive work activities at Tyson. Claimant was found to have reached maximum medical improvement, but continued to complain of shoulder problems.  Dr. Adams concluded that claimant had chronic calcific tendinitis, but not evidence of a rotator cuff tear.   He found that work activities had aggravated her condition.  He found that work had accelerated her condition, but also found that no surgery was currently needed but that a surgery in the future would not be work-related.  Tyson denied liability. Claimant was asked to sign a non-work leave of absence.  She refused and was eventually terminated. At hearing, the agency concluded that claimant had demonstrated that she had a compensable injury and awarded a  running healing period.  Defendants appealed, claiming that if Dr. Adams' opinions were rejected, there was no

In Ramirez-Trujillo v. Quality Egg , No. 14-0640 (Iowa April 15, 2016), the Court wrestled with the meaning of section 85.27(4) of the Iowa Code.  The sentence in issue in this case states that "If the employer chooses the care, the employer shall hold the employee harmless for the cost of care until the employer notifies the employee that the employer is no longer authorizing all or any part of the care and the reason for that change in authorization."  The commissioner concluded that section 85.27(4) required a notice to the claimant in all circumstances if the employer was terminating previously authorized care.  The district court reversed, finding that Quality Egg reasonably believed claimant had recovered from the work injury and did not need to provide notice.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the commissioner and reversed the district court. In a lengthy decision, the Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and remands the claim to the commission

Pella Corporation v. Marshall , No. 14-2121 (Iowa App. April 6, 2016) involved a claimant who sustained an injury to his right shoulder.  At the deputy level, claimant's injury was found not to have arisen out of employment.  This decision was reversed by the commissioner, who concluded that claimant had a 20% industrial disability.  At the first judicial review proceeding, the case was remanded to the commissioner for a determination of whether the facts as testified to by the claimant or the history contained in the medical records would govern.  On remand the commissioner affirmed the initial decision, finding that no deference was provided to the original arbitration decision because there had been no credibility finding made in that decision.  This decision was affirmed by the district court. On appeal, after discussing the history and facts of the case in great detail, the court affirmed with respect to causation and the degree of industrial disability.  On the causation is

In Jack Cooper Transport Co. v. Jones , No. 15-0960 (Iowa App. April 6, 2016), the commissioner concluded that a truck driver who suffered a back injury was permanently and totally disabled.  In the decision, the causation determination and restrictions of the IME physician, Dr. Koprivica, were accepted over the opinions of Dr. Boarini or Dr. Ciccarelli.  The district court affirmed the PTD award on substantial evidence grounds. Noting that the issue of causation was within the realm of medical expert testimony, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant sustained a permanent injury.  The court also concluded that the finding of permanent total disability was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.  The court noted that claimant was not able to return to work after the back injury.  Dr. Koprivica restricted claimant from driving a truck, which had been the only work performed by the claimant.   The decision of the agency wa