Court of Appeals Decides Case on Prosthetic Devices, Permanent Total Disability, Rate

Following a significant accident in which claimant injured his hand, shoulder and neck when a sealing clamp of a machine closed on his hand, Allen Conell sought payment for an active and passive prosthetic device.  The commissioner denied the passive prosthetic hand, but the Court of Appeals, following the decision of the district court, reversed the decision of the agency.  Nestle USA v. Conell, No. 17-0267 (Iowa App. Feb. 7, 2018).

Claimant had originally been awarded a passive prosthetic hand following the injury, but the commissioner reversed this award finding that providing the passive prosthetic hand in addition to an active prosthetic hand violated the language of section 85.27(1), which only requires that "one set of permanent prosthetic devices" be provided. The commissioner held that claimant was only entitled to one prosthetic device per entitlement and that having an active and passive device violated this requirement.  The district court reversed, finding that the passive hand was an extension of Conell's prosthetic, thus rendering this a single device.  The Court of Appeal affirmed, noting that the passive prosthetic hand was merely an extension of the mechanical hand, citing Quaker Oats v. Ciha (home modifications are extension of wheelchair) and Manpower Temp. Servs. v. Sioson (van is extension of wheelchair).   The court found that the mechanical prosthetic hand was a reasonable and necessary device but only for a fraction of the day.  The court affirmed the district court's award of the passive prosthetic. 

The employer raised issues about causation for the neck injury, permanency for mental health issues and claimant's award of permanent total disability benefits.  All of these issues were decided on the basis of substantial evidence.

The final issue before the court was a rate issue.  Claimant had routinely worked more than 40 hours in each week preceding the injury.  Claimant sough to eliminate two 44 hour weeks from the rate calculation.  In rejecting this argument, the court concluded that the commissioner's finding that all of the weeks should be included was not illogical, irrational or whole unjustifiable.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

Thomas v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 23-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2023) Claimant initial suffered a compensable injury to his right eye in 2017.  He subsequently sustained several injuries in 2018 while stepping off a pontoon boat, which he attributed to a lack of depth perception as a result of his eye issues.  The deputy ruled in favor of claimant, but the commissioner reversed, finding that the 2018 injuries were not a sequelae of the original eye injuries.   The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  The Court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion and noted that although claiant speculated that his fall was caused by his right eye injuries, claimant could not specifically recall what happened and there were no witnesses to provide context.  The speculation of medical experts that vision loss caused the fall
Read more

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu
Read more

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions April 2024 Ramirez Ruiz v. Hy-Vee, Inc. , No. 22004416.01 (App. April 19, 2024) - Claimant suffered an injury to the left foot which the deputy found had extended into the body as a whole.  A 45% industrial disability was awarded.  The deputy agreed to claimant's rate and awarded payment of healing period, temporary partial and penalty benefits.  The penalty was for the underpayment of benefits (Humphrey, in a 58 page decision). On appeal, the commissioner affirmed the decision of the deputy without additional analysis.  4 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc. , No. 21-14161.02 (App. April 10, 2024) - The deputy concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate an injury arising out of employment.  The deputy also concluded that claimant failed to demonstrate a permanent disability (Gerrish-Lampe). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration t
Read more