Court of Appeals Remands Claim Involving Work Relatedness of MRSA Injury

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 to MRSA at work.  On judicial review, the district court affirmed, finding that claimant had cited no case that awarded benefits for an injury where the source of infection was not present on the job site.  Claimant appealed, arguing that there was no necessity to demonstrate that he was exposed to MRSA on the job site.

The court of appeals reverses the decision of the district court.  The court concludes that even if the MRSA exposure did not occur at the job site, there had been no conclusive answer from the commissioner about whether the cuts and scrapes occurred at work and whether the MRSA was a sequela of that work injury.  The court noted that there were no findings that the cuts or scrapes were a work injury.  Accordingly, the decision of the agency was unreasonable and illogical.  The court declined claimant's invitation to simply affirm the deputy's original decision, as the agency action was the action of the commissioner and the commissioner had not made the requisite factual finding.  The case was remanded to determine whether claimant suffered cuts or scrapes at work and the MRSA infection was a sequela of cuts or scrapes suffered at work.