Iowa Workers' Compensation

 In United Fire and Casualty v. Hessenius , No. 19-1929 (Iowa App. Dec. 16, 2020), the court considered the commissioner’s award of a partial commutation following a PTD award under the old (pre- 7/1/17j law.   The deputy had awarded only $100,000 of the partial commutation, but the commissioner reversed and awarded a partial commutation of over $1 million.  Defendants appeal. Defendants argued that the commissioner’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence, specifically alleging that claimant had not demonstrated how he would make up for the stream of income lost due to the partial commutation.  The court notes that claimant had testified that he planned to invest the amounts very conservatively to provide a stream of income.  The court also notes that claimant’s financial advisor was fully in support of the commutation.  The court finds that claimant’s testimony and evidence was substantial evidence supporting the commissioner’s decision.

In Streit v. Streit Construction, No. 19-0615 (Iowa App. Nov. 4, 2020), claimant alleged that the MRSA from which he suffered occurred as a result of cuts and bruises he had suffered at work.  Claimant was originally found to have sustained a work injury as a result of the cuts and scrapes he suffered at work.  The commissioner reversed, concluding that the medical evidence demonstrated that claimant had not demonstrated an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.  On judicial review, the court concluded that the agency had applied the standards for occupational disease under Chapter 85A rather than the standard for other injuries under Chapter 85.  According to the court, claimant did not need to demonstrate that exposure to harmful conditions at work led to the MRSA diagnosis. On remand, the commissioner affirmed, finding that the MRSA condition did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  The commissioner noted that there was no evidence claimant was exposed

In Pruisman v. Iowa Tanklines , No. 19-1012 (Iowa App. Aug. 5, 2020), the commissioner had awarded claimant a 45% industrial disability.  On judicial review, the district court reversed, finding that the commissioner’s decision was irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable.  On appeal, the COA reverses the district court and reinstates the commissioner’s decision. Claimant had suffered a back injury at work and although he returned to work, did not perform his full range of duties.  He was ultimately laid off from work and applied for and received social security disability.  As a part of the disability process, a consultative exam found he was limited to 20 pounds.  Claimant’s IME (Bansal) also limited claimant to 20 pounds.  Dr. Beck, claimant’s treating surgeon, did not place any restrictions on claimant. He later indicated that work over 50 pounds should only be performed infrequently.  Based on this and a vocational report showing vocational loss of up to 35%, the deputy and

In July of 2017, the partial commutation statute was amended to permit commutations only if both parties agreed.  Prior to the effective date of the statute on 7/1/17, cases were filed throughout Iowa seeking partial commutations despite the fact that no administrative decision had been issued setting the amount of benefits owed to the claimant.  These cases were uniformly denied by the commissioner and in Vangetson v. Aero Concrete, Ltd.  and Fasig Snitker v. Birdnow Enterprises, Inc ., No. 19-0738 (Iowa App. July 22, 2020), the Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the district court which had, in turn, affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The court focused on the language in section 85.45(1) of the Code which stated that a commutation was possible when "the period during which compensation is payable can be definitely determined" and when the commutation was in the "best interest" of the claimant.  The court noted, in reviewing the claim, that the c

In Taylor v. Gazette Communications , No. 19-1611 (Iowa App. June 17, 2020), plaintiff was placed by a Labor broker (Aerotek) into employment with Gazette.  Plaintiff was injured at employment and filed a workers compensation claim against the employer.  Plaintiff also filed a negligence claim against the employer.  The district court granted summary judgment to defendant based on an exculpatory provision in the labor broker agreement providing that no negligence claim could be undertaken and that an injured worker would be limited to workers compensation remedies.  The 85.20 summary judgment claim was not reached because there were factual issues precluding summary judgment.  The Court of Appeals affirms the decision finding that the exculpatory clause was preclusive of a negligence actions.  The court concludes that Aerotek had not made specific promises of a safe working environment.  The court also found that the 85.20 issue need not be reached.

In KAS Investment v. Buehlmann , No. 19-1085 (Iowa App. May 13, 2020), the court addressed a decision of the commissioner finding claimant eligible for benefits and awarding penalty.  The court finds that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner and that the commissioner’s actions were not an abuse of discretion.  Because the issues in the case involved the application of well-settled law, the case was affirmed by memorandum opinion under Iowa Court Rule 21.26.

In Logan v. The Bon Ton Stores, Inc. , No. 19-0608 (Iowa May 1, 2020), the court addressed a recurring question of service of judicial review petitions in workers' compensation actions.  The statute, 17A.19(2), requires personal service or service by mail within ten days.  Earlier cases, including Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , 928 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa 2019) had found that substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. In Ortiz, service had been by email and this was found to substantially comply with the statute.  The court describes  Logan  as a codicil to Ortiz . Claimant appeared pro so in this case, filed her petition for judicial review and sent the petition to opposing counsel by fax.  The court noted that defendants were not prejudiced by receipt by fax, since this was received by counsel well within the ten day limit.  Although the court noted that the golden age of faxes was well in the past (and thus unlikely to occur again) the cour

As presented by the Supreme Court in Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc. , No. 18-1051 (Iowa May 1,  2020), the issue before the court was "whether a workers' compensation claimant who receives disability benefits for a traumatic injury can later recover disability benefits on a separate disability claim if the cumulative injury is based solely on aggravation of the earlier traumatic injury."  The court unanimously concluded that Ms. Gumm could not recover. Claimant initially suffered a fracture of her right ankle, for which she was paid WC benefits following surgery.  The last payment of benefits for the injury was on May 10, 2010.  Claimant continued to suffer from right ankle pain and in January of 2012 returned to the treating physician.  The physician believed that this could have been from a coincidence or from compensating for her right ankle pain. On April 11, 2012, she underwent another surgery, returning to full-duty work on May 3.  Claimant continued

In Bruss v. Grout Scouts, Inc ., No. 19-0943 (Iowa App. April 15, 2020), the court addressed a petition for judicial review that had been filed in a timely fashion but had not been served according to Chapter 17A.  The employee argued that there was an agreement between counsel to accept service of the petition.  Defendants' counsel agreed to accept service, but after several weeks, defendants' counsel indicated she had not received the PJR.  The employee's counsel immediately send the petition but defendants' counsel sought dismissal.  Claimant urged that the employer should be estopped from asserting that the petition had not been properly served.  The Court of Appeals affirmed. On appeal, the employee argued that she had substantially complied with chapter 17A, which requires service by mail within 10 days.  The employee also argued that the employer should be estopped since defendants' counsel had agreed to accept service.  Because the petition was not prov

In True v. Heritage Care and Rehabilitation , No. 18-0818 (Iowa App. April 1, 2020), the court addressed two penalty issues brought by claimant. Claimant initially filed a medical only claim, but moved to amend the action 3 days before the statute of limitations filed to allege eligibility for temporary and permanency benefits as well as penalty. At hearing on the motion to amend, claimant listed permanent partial disability and alternate care, but not penalty benefits.  The deputy concluded the amended petition was timely and directed claimant to refile her petition.  When claimant refiled, penalty was not listed as issue, although the earlier petition had alleged penalty.  The deputy concluded on the merits that the earlier petition was the one to be considered and this was affirmed by the COA in an earlier decision on the case.  Benefits were ultimately paid to claimant in 2015.  After benefits were paid, claimant filed another action alleging penalty benefits.  The deputy foun

In Lovan v. Broadlawns Medical Center , No. 19-0511 (Iowa App. April 1, 2020), the agency denied claimant's application for alternate medical care following a telephonic hearing. On judicial review, the district court found that the decision of the treating physician was so contrary to all previous medical testimony that it rises to the level of the employer choosing improper care for the employee. On appeal, the court notes that although exhibits were present in the record, there was no transcript or recording of the AMC hearing provided to either the district court or court of appeals.  The court concludes that since claimant's own words as to the reason for dissatisfaction with the care provided was essential, the court could not adequately review the record.  The court rejected a claim that it was standard practice not to provide the transcript, finding that other AMC cases before the courts had apparently produced a transcript or record of the hearing.  With no transc

In Huffey v. Second Injury Fund and Mail Contractors of America, No. 18-2055 (Iowa App. April 2, 2020), the court held, among other things, that claimant did not need to produce medical records concerning the first injury in order to establish a loss or loss of use under section 85.64 in SIF cases.  This action affirmed the decision of the district court, which had reversed the action of the agency. Claimant brought an initial action against the employer.  The commissioner found that claimant had established a 2% injury to the right knee in 2011, but denied that claimant had a sequela injury to the left knee as a result of the right knee injury.  Claimant subsequently filed an action for a 2012 for a left knee injury.  The deputy awarded a 50% impairment for the left knee, which was reversed by the commissioner.  Claimant's SIF claim was for a right arm injury in 1999 and right knee injury in 2011.  Despite these allegations, the agency treated the right knee injury as the fi

Over the years, a number of trucking companies have required, as a condition of employment, that drivers' agree that when they are released to light duty work, they will accept treatment in Iowa.  In Roland v Annett Holdings, Inc. , No. 18-1092 (Iowa March 20, 2020), the Supreme Court addressed such a memorandum of understanding in the context of a class action challenge to such proceedings. Claimant was a driver for Annett, where he was injured.  He had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreeing to short-term light duty and treatment in Iowa.  His initial treatment was in Alabama, where he lived.  His doctor prescribed a certain type of therapy with a cooling machine.  The employer sought to have claimant return to Iowa for treatment, but he could not travel by air with the machine and could not keep the electricity on for the machine while driving.  The employer required claimant to return to Iowa.  Claimant filed an alternate medical care application, which was gran

In Ditsworth v. Icon Ag , No. 19-0703 (Iowa App. March 18, 2020), the commissioner affirmed an a total award of 50% based on the apportionment of two injuries with the same employer.  The first injury was settled by the parties and the second injury resulted in a total award of 50%, with an additional 30% awarded for the second injury. Claimant appealed the commissioner’s decision, apparently arguing that since different insurers were involved, apportionment should not have occurred and claimant should have received 50% for the second injury.  The court agreed with the commissioner and noted that 85.34(7)(b).  Citing Roberts Dairy v. Billick , the court found the language of 85.34(7)(b) required apportionment. The decision of the commissioner was affirmed.

The case of Thornton v. Interstate Insurance Company , No. 18-0809 (Iowa Feb. 28, 2020) came before the supreme court for a second time.  In the first proceeding, the court had remanded the action for a new assessment of compensatory and punitive damages. 897 N.W.2d 445 (Iowa 2017). In the second trial, damages were set at $382,000 and punitive damages at $6,750,000.  Reductions to both damage amounts were made by the court in this action. The reduction in compensatory damages came about primarily because the court concluded that bad faith had not been shown with respect to the carrier's delayed provision of a wheelchair for claimant.  The court observed that although an order for a wheelchair was provided by the doctor, this was not forwarded to the carrier until after a mobility test was conducted (some ten weeks later) and so bad faith did not apply.  Ultimately, the court reduced compensatory damages to $58,452.42 for attorney's fees and mental pain and suffering as a

Claimant was originally found to have suffered a 40% industrial disability following the arbitration hearing.  On appeal, the commissioner's designee concluded that the appropriate level of disability was 25%.  The reviewing deputy also reversed an award of alternate medical care and penalty benefits by the hearing deputy.  In Harrod v. Advance Services Inc., No. 19-0169 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2020), the Court of Appeals affirms the appeal decision. Claimant suffered shoulder and neck injuries at work.  The treating doctor provided treatment for the shoulder injury, but not the neck injury.  Claimant sought alternate medical care, which was denied by defendants.  The hearing deputy concluded claimant had suffered a 40% industrial disability and also found that alternative care was appropriate because claimant was still in pain and the treating doctor did not treat spinal injuries.  A penalty of $4500 was awarded for failure to pay benefits in a timely manner.  On appeal, the revi

In Lewis v. Windsor Windows and Doors , No. 19-0576 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2020), the deputy concluded that claimant lacked credibility and further found that claimant failed to demonstrate an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.  The decision was affirmed by the commissioner. On appeal, the court notes that the commissioner had given deference to the fact finding of the deputy with regard to credibility.  The court defers to the credibility findings of the agency and notes that the job of the court is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings.  The court also noted that the commissioner's decision was sufficiently detailed to show the path taken through the conflicting evidence.  Finding substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the agency, the court affirms.

In Harris Steel Group v. Botkin , No. 19-0015 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2020), claimant was awarded alternate medical care in the face of defendants' contention that the application should not have been granted because the employee refused to attend a defense medical evaluation.  The court affirms the award of alternate medical care. Claimant suffered a shoulder injury, as a result of which surgery was ultimately performed.  Problems recurred and claimant attempted to obtain care with the treating physician two years after the surgery.  The doctor indicated that claimant should determine from the employer whether they would authorize the care.  Claimant was scheduled for an evaluation by the defendant, but refused to attend.  Subsequently, the employer failed to respond to claimant's written request to authorize care.   The agency concluded that defendant could not interfere with treatment by Dr. Mendel and concluded that further treatment with Dr. Mendel was reasonable.  On

In Presbyterian Homes and Services, Inc. v. Buchanan , No. 19-0010 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2020), the agency concluded that claimant had established industrial disability as a result of a sequela injury to the back suffered after a left foot injury.  Claimant was awarded 65% industrial disability as well as penalty benefits for withholding of healing period benefits without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.  The district court affirmed on medical causation and industrial disability but reversed the penalty award. On appeal, the court noted that claimant had a long history of left foot problems,  right foot problems and back injuries.  She suffered an injury to her left ankle in 2014, but did not immediately report the problems to her employer. She sought treatment approximately 3 months later.  The initial medical reports did not establish a work-related injury.  Her pain increased in an August she reduced her shifts.  The employer offered to start workers' compensation but c

2020 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions December 2020 Rivera v. Smithfield Foods,  Inc. , No. 5066964 (App. Dec.  31, 2020) - In this post 7/1/17 case, claimant was found to have an injury to her left shoulder.  The ratings were 6% and 8%, but the deputy awarded a 40% functional loss of the shoulder, but based this award on 250 weeks rather than 400 weeks, thus awarding claimant 100 weeks of benefits.  On a nunc pro tunc motion, this was increased to 160 weeks of benefits, based on 85.34(2)(n) (Gerrish-Lampe).  Defendants appeal, based on the fact that 85.34(2)(x) limits functional awards to AMA Guides based ratings.  Claimant argues that her injury was not a scheduled member injury and also avers that (2)(x) is violative of claimant's constitutional rights.  The commissioner finds that the injury did not extend into the body and suffered an injury to the left shoulder.  The commissioner reverses the 40% award, finding that under 85.34(2)(x), benefits are limited to the ra