Court of Appeals Denies Review Reopening Claim Where Claimant was Transferred to a Different Position as a Result of his Injury and was Subsequently Laid Off
Linares v. Tyson Fresh Meats, No. 17-1409 (Iowa App. June 6, 2018) involved a situation where claimant was originally awarded a 40% industrial disability as a result of his injury. As a result of the injury, claimant was sent to work on a line which involved less physical work. The persons who were on this line were later laid off and claimant filed a review reopening petition, claiming that his economic circumstances had changed as a result of the layoff.
Both the arbitration and appeal decisions concluded that the permanent work restrictions were known to the parties at the time of the arbitration decision and were considered at that time in determining claimant's industrial loss. Since the restrictions had not changed, there was no physical change and there was no economic change, according to the commissioner because the layoffs were not related to claimant's condition, but affected all employees equally.
The district court affirmed, finding that claimant's condition had been determined at the time of the original settlement. The Court of Appeals, noting the decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. West Communications v. Overholser, 566 N.W.2d 873, 877 (Iowa 1997) concluded that claimant "was not entitled to review-reopening when her economic condition decreased due to a layoff." Based on Overholser, the court affirmed the decision of the agency.
In making the decision in the case, the Court of Appeals did not address the fact that in Overholser, claimant was sent to another department not because of her work injury, but because of another injury that was not work related. Although this would seem to be a distinguishing factor between Overholser and Linares, the decision does not address this factual distinction.
The Linares case is being handled by Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga.
Both the arbitration and appeal decisions concluded that the permanent work restrictions were known to the parties at the time of the arbitration decision and were considered at that time in determining claimant's industrial loss. Since the restrictions had not changed, there was no physical change and there was no economic change, according to the commissioner because the layoffs were not related to claimant's condition, but affected all employees equally.
The district court affirmed, finding that claimant's condition had been determined at the time of the original settlement. The Court of Appeals, noting the decision of the Supreme Court in U.S. West Communications v. Overholser, 566 N.W.2d 873, 877 (Iowa 1997) concluded that claimant "was not entitled to review-reopening when her economic condition decreased due to a layoff." Based on Overholser, the court affirmed the decision of the agency.
In making the decision in the case, the Court of Appeals did not address the fact that in Overholser, claimant was sent to another department not because of her work injury, but because of another injury that was not work related. Although this would seem to be a distinguishing factor between Overholser and Linares, the decision does not address this factual distinction.
The Linares case is being handled by Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga.
Comments
Post a Comment