Iowa Workers' Compensation

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