Iowa Workers' Compensation

Carroll Area Nursing Services v. Malloy , No. 18-2126 (Iowa App. July 24, 2019) involved the operation of the going and coming rule and resulted in the award of healing period benefits by the commissioner.  The employer appealed and the Court of Appeals affirms the award of benefits. Claimant was a visiting nurse.  On the date of her work accident, she had left her car at her mother's house to attend a personal medical appointment.  Claimant's mother drove claimant to her appointment and on the way back from the appointment, claimant was asked to see a patient of hers.  She returned to her house, changed into her work clothes and as she was heading to the patient's house, was involved in a head-on collision.  At hearing, claimant was found entitled to a running award of healing period benefits.  The agency cited the personal vehicle exception to the going and coming rule.  The agency also found there was no personal deviation at the time of the accident. The Court noted

In Tilton v. H.J. Heinz Co. No. 18-1629 (Iowa App. July 24, 2019), the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and affirmed the action of the commissioner which had found claimant had not notified the employer of her claim in a timely manner.  . Claimant suffered a cumulative back problem while working for Heinz.  In 2010, she began working in a position that was said to be physically demanding, although she had suffered from back pain since 2000 and had treated for it since that time. Claimant was taken off work due to back pain in March of 2010, but she was found to be capable of work without restriction in September of 2010. The problems recurred in February of 2011 and ultimately claimant went on disability benefits on April 15, 2013.  She gave notice of a work injury on May 5, 2013 and filed a claim for benefits in March of 2015. The commissioner concluded that claimant's condition had manifested in 2010 and thus her 2013 notice was not timely under 85

In McDonald v EZ Pay , No. 18-1152 (Iowa App. July 24, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed a decision of the commissioner finding that claimant's legionnaire's disease was not related to an incident at work where he cut his hand while attempting to catch a cutting blade.  At hearing, claimant presented evidence from his treating physician that the cut and subsequent infection made him more susceptible to contacting legionnaire's.   A supervisor at the plant indicated in an affidavit that there had never been Legionella bacteria found at the plant and opined that he did not believe this condition could have been caused by the operations at the plant.  The agency initially accepted the reports of the doctor over that of the supervisor and awarded benefits.  This finding, however, was reversed on appeal, finding that neither the treating doctor nor Dr. Bansal was aware of the procedures at the plant to prevent Legionella bacteria from infecting the water in the plant. The