Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Baccam v. ACH Food Companies, aka Tone's, No.18-1002 (Iowa App. March 6,  2019), the court addressed issues concerning the extent of claimant's leg impairment,  the extent of penalties and costs of the action.  Claimant was found to have a 2% leg impairment by defendants' doctor, 3% from his IME doctor, but argued that based on his loss of use, his award should have been higher than the 3% awarded by the commissioner.   The Court of Appeals affirmed, based on substantial evidence.  On the penalty claim, claimant argued his penalty benefits on permanency should have been greater.  a 5% penalty award was made,  based on a failure to pay permanency benefits when due.  The court concluded that there was no error in this finding.  On the costs issue, the court found that claimant was not entitled to payment for the costs of the appeal transcript. On the remainder of costs, the court found that the commissioner had not abused its discretion in denying costs. 

In Huff v. CRST Expedited , No. 18-0336 (Iowa App. March 6, 2019), the court addressed an alternate medical care dispute and remanded the claim to the agency for a determination of certain facts relating to claimant's access to certain appliances and services.  The court concludes that the absence of medical evidence is not a bright line bar to an award of alternate medical care, but finds the agency must  make further factual findings. Claimant had a catastrophic accident, rendering him wheelchair bound.  Following his accident, he lived with his son in a second floor apartment, but ultimately requested ADA compliant living arrangement, a handicap van and a home healthcare provider.  The agency initially denied the alternate medical care application because claimant had not presented medical support for his alternate care requests.  Claimant later filed a second alternate medical care request, which contained an assessment from the Area Agency on Aging relating to his medical ne

In Lynch Livestock v. Bursell , No. 17-1629 (Iowa App. March 6, 2019), claimant was awarded medical expenses for unauthorized care premised on a beneficial care theory. In an earlier appeal, the court of appeals had remanded the claim to the agency, finding that if alternate care had not been correctly ordered based on the correct legal standard, claimant must prove the treatment was reasonable and beneficial. On remand, the agency denied the petition for alternate medical care because claimant had not exhausted conservative care before obtaining surgery.  Following the alternate care hearing, an arbitration hearing was held and claimant was awarded medical care, finding that the deauthorization of certain previously authorized physicians was inappropriate and that claimant's care with these doctors was reasonable and beneficial. At the district court level, the employer argued that claimant had not met the Bell Brothers  standard.  the district court agreed, holding that defen