Court of Appeals Affirms PTD and Penalty Award

In Pella Corp. v. Winn, No. 17-1545 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2019) , the court affirms an award of permanent total disability and penalty.  The employer had also argued that the petition for review-reopening was untimely and the court affirms the rejection of this argument by the agency.

In the original action, claimant was found to have a work-related injury, but as temporary total and permanency benefits were not in dispute, only medical benefits were awarded.  This decision was ultimately affirmed by the Court of Appeals.  Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening proceeding, at which the agency awarded permanent total disability.and penalty benefits. 

On review, Pella argued that review-reopening is not available under Iowa Code 85.26(2) and 86.14(2) when the initial award did not include weekly disability benefits. The agency determined an award of solely medical benefits was eligible for review-reopening under section 85.26(2).  Pella argued "weekly benefits" means only indemnity benefits.  The court of appeals, citing Beier Glass Co. v. Brundige, 392 N.W.2d 280, 287 (Iowa 1983), concludes that the three year period for review-reopening begins on the date of the award and concludes that they are bound by this precedent.  Pella argues that under 86.14, a review-reopening provision is not available when there is no prior award of weekly disability benefits to reopen. The court holds that interpreting 86.14(2) would require reversing or ignoring Beier Glass.  Pella questions the continuing validity of Beier Glass given changes to the law since the decision was rendered. The court notes, however, that 85.26(2) had not been substantially changed since that time. 

The permanent total disability award review-reopening criteria were reviewed under a substantial evidence standard. The court noted that claimant had been provided a 13% impairment rating for her shoulder injury and that she had considerable difficulties performing household tasks because of the injury. Following the original hearing, claimant's employment with Pella had ended.  She had looked for work without success, although she was working five days a month as a substitute aide at a preschool at the time of hearing. The court considered this to be substantial evidence supporting the PTD award. 

Pella also argues that equitable estoppel and laches prevent claimant from receiving PTD benefits.  The court notes that the agency had indicated that the only reason permanent disability had not been requested as a part of the earlier action was because she had not reached MMI at that time.  Thus, she had not declined to exercise a right she knew she possessed at the time and equitable estoppel and laches did not apply.  

The award of penalty benefits was also affirmed, as Pella's primary reason for denying claimant's claim was because of their opinion that Beier Glass  was wrongly decided.  The court agreed that although Pella could argue that existing precedent was wrongly decided, they could not withhold benefits while doing so.