Iowa Workers' Compensation

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