Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Askvig v. Snap-On Logistics Co., No. 20-0997 (Iowa Dec. 17, 2021) This case presents the question of whether the Supreme Court's COVID order of April 2, 2020 and May 8, 2020, which tolled the statute of limitations "or similar deadline" for commencing an action in district court applies to the filing of a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation case, specifically a PJR filed following a deemed denial of a rehearing application before the agency.  The Court concludes that the statute is not tolled in such a situation. Claimant filed an application for rehearing with the workers' compensation commissioner on February 25, 2020.  Under operation of the workers' compensation regulation at 876 IAC 4.24, if the commissioner fails to act on an application within 20 days, it is deemed denied. In Ms. Askvig's case, this was March 16, 2020.  Under section 17A.19(3), an application for rehearing which is deemed denied, a PJR must be filed within 30 d

  Jackson v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations , No. 21-0017 (Iowa App. Dec. 15, 2021) Claimant's estate alleged that he committed suicide as a result of a mental injury arising out of his employment.  The agency and district court denied benefits.   Claimant was a 28 year employee at Bridgestone and he missed only three days of work in those 28 years.  In August of 2016, claimant engaged in acts of insubordination (disobeying supervisory directives concerning safety and quality) and lying about those acts.  He was suspended for a cooling off period.  He was subsequently called into a meeting and was told he was being fired.  Claimant went home and was found in the garage with his vehicle running.  At that point, he agreed to come out, but he left the home and was found dead by hanging a few hours later.  Claimant had made statements at the time that he would take his life if he lost his job. Approximately eight months before his death, claimant was diagnosed with major depressi

Foster v. East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. , No. 20-1738 (Iowa App. Dec. 15, 2021) Claimant suffered a work injury and was initially paid benefits for her time off work and for medical care. A second surgery was recommended, but the employer did not authorize the surgery or pay for her time off work after the second surgery.  The agency imposed penalty against the employer and this finding was affirmed by the district court.  Defendant appeals, arguing that the delay was necessary to investigate the claim, there was a reasonable basis for the delay and there was a good faith basis to dispute the entitlement to benefits. The surgeon who had performed claimant's original surgery recommended a second surgery.  Defendants sent claimant to a second surgeon (Dr. Kirkland), who found that claimant was not at MMI and indicated that the problems she was experiencing were related to the original injury.  The treating physician, Dr. Goding, requested an MRI, which was authorized.  Based on t

City of Maxwell v. Marshall , No. 20-0916 (Iowa App. Oct. 20, 2021)  Claimant suffered an injury while working as a volunteer firefighter for the City of Maxwell.  Claimant had a number of surgeries and sought healing period benefits for the period between January 17, 2015 and April 10, 2017.  The deputy awarded healing period benefits, but denied penalty benefits, finding that the employer was not consistently late in paying weekly benefits.  The commissioner affirmed and both parties filed for judicial review.  On judicial review, defendants requested remand to the commissioner for consideration of additional evidence that was not available at the time of hearing.  This request was denied and the district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.  Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The penalty benefits question centered around claimant's date of injury and the date on which benefits should have started.  Claimant suffered an injury on December 11, 2013 and claim

Tew v. Sparboe Farms , No. 20-1202 (Iowa App. Oct. 6, 2021)  Claimant suffered an injury to his back prior to beginning his work at Sparboe Farms, as a result of a motor vehicle accident.  In 2016, he began suffering additional pain in his back, which he ultimately attributed to  his work.  He reported sleeping wrong to his supervisor and also noted that he fell while mowing his lawn.  Claimant did not report his injury as work-related until two months after he began having a recurrence of back pain.  On these facts, the commissioner found that claimant's attribution of his back injury to his work was not credible and benefits were denied.  Claimant appeals. On appeal, claimant argues that the commissioner erred in not finding a cumulative injury and claims that the commissioner did not correctly apply the law to his claim.  The Court of Appeals dismisses this argument, finding that although the injury could well have been cumulative, the commissioner found that it did not arise ou

Masterbrand Cabinets v. Simons , No. 20-1635 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021)  The commissioner concluded that claimant had suffered a ruptured right quadriceps tendon, concluded that this injury extended into the body, specifically the hip and awarded industrial disability benefits as well as penalty.  Defendants appealed and the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that defendants' argument that claimant's injury was a scheduled injury was a "miserly reading of the statute."  The court noted that if an injury to a scheduled member has effects extending beyond that member, resulting in permanent impairment to the body as a whole, this may be the basis of industrial disability.  The court concludes that the commissioner did not err in interpreting the law in finding that the injury extending into the body as a whole. The court also concludes that the commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidenc

Blake v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 20-1382 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021) Claimant suffered an injury at work and alleged that she had suffered a first injury in the form of eye problems.  Claimant suffered from Graves disease, and the question in the case was whether she had suffered a qualifying first injury.  The commissioner found that claimant's eye problems were not a qualifying first injury   and dismissed the claim against the Fund.  Claimant appeals. Claimant argued that under Gregory , claimant's eye problems were a permanent disability and thus a qualifying injury.  The court found that Gregory   was inapplicable because in that case an earlier hand injury combined with injuries to other unenumerated body parts was before the court whereas in Blake , the condition was an unenumerated condition leading to problems with a scheduled member, in this case, the eye.   The court noted that in Nelson , the court had noted that an injury that merely affects a scheduled mem

  Reinsbach v. Great Lakes Cooperative , No. 20-1097 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021) In this action to enforce the decision of the commissioner under section 86.42, claimant argued that the district court went beyond construing the ruling of the commissioner and improperly modified the ruling. The case had previously reach the Court of Appeals with a decision issued on July 9, 2015.  That case found that claimant's condition was related to the work injury, but reversed with respect to the costs of Dr. Kuhnlein's costs.  The agency subsequently order defendants to provide all future care and treatment recommended by Dr. Strothman.  Claimant sought to enforce that order under 86.42.  Defendants argued that the district court should construe the commissioner's order to provide claimant with all causally related, reasonable and necessary care for the work condition.  The district court ordered care with Dr. Strothman and added that defendants should authorize and pay for all reasona

Kern v. Fenchel, Doster & Buck, P.L.C , No. 20-1206 (Iowa App. Sept. 1, 2021) Claimant suffered an injury while working, but when sent for an examination with a doctor engaged by the employer, that doctor found that the injury was not causally related to work.  Claimant subsequently had an IME with Dr. Bansal, who found causation and permanent impairment.  The commissioner found that claimant had suffered a permanent impairment as a result of an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.  Claimant's request for penalty benefits was denied.  A request for reimbursement of the IME was also denied, with the commissioner concluding that a finding of no causal connection was not tantamount to a finding of no impairment.  Citing DART v. Young , the commissioner denied reimbursement under 85.39.  Costs under rule 4.33 were also denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the case was governed by DART v. Young , noting that employers were "not obligated to pay

Cufurovic v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , No. 20-1094 (Iowa App. Aug. 4, 2021) -  Claimant's workers' compensation case was dismissed by the agency, which concluded she had failed to meet her burden of demonstrating an injury that arose out of her employment.  The agency had relied on the opinions of Dr. Gordon and Dr. Schmitz in concluding that claimant had not met her burden of proof.  Dr. Delbridge's opinion in support of claimant's assertion of a work-related injury was discounted as he allegedly misunderstood claimant's work duties.  The district court concluded that the record might have supported a different outcome according to the Court of Appeals.  The role of the appellate court, however, was not to determine whether the evidence supports a different finding but to determine whether substantial evidence supported the finding made by the agency.  In this case, the opinions of Dr. Gordon and Dr. Schmitz supported the decision of the agency, there was substantial evi

Smith v. TPI Iowa , No. 20-1269 (Iowa App. July 21, 2021) - Claimant allegedly suffered a shoulder injury for which he had surgery. Defendants denied the claim based on the report of Dr. Aviles.  Claimant sought an IME with Dr. Stoken in which she indicated that claimant had an impairment that was causally related to the subject injury, but did not express an opinion that the subject injury was related to Smith's employment.   The agency found claimant had failed to demonstrate an injury that arose out of and in the course of employment.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals notes that although claimant suffered an injury, he did not prove that the injury was causally related to employment through medical testimony.  Neither Dr. Aviles not Dr. Sullivan (who performed the surgery) found that claimant's injury arose out of employment.  Because Dr. Stoken's opinion did not specifically connect the injury to claimant's work, the court concluded that substantial evidence supporte

Dotts v. City of Des Moines , No. 20-0954 (Iowa App. July 21,  2021) - In this somewhat unusual alternate medical care case, claimant filed for alternate medical care under 85.27 and was denied such care by the agency.  Claimant appealed and on judicial review, the district court considered the record, which did not include a transcript of the agency hearing.  The Court of Appeals noted that they also did not have a transcript of the agency hearing to decide whether substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency. The court notes that the reasonableness of the care provided by defendant was contingent on claimant's testimony that the doctor refused to see him and concessions allegedly made by the employer during the hearing.  Because the court did not have a transcript to review, the conclusion was reached that there was no ability to review the testimony to determine whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.  The court notes that party seeking judicial

 In American Home Assurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. , No. 20-0769 (Iowa App. July 21, 2021), claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits and was awarded those benefits against American Home, which American home paid.  Claimant later filed a review-reopening petition, at which point American Home discovered it was not the insurer on the claim as of the time of injury.  American then filed an application for payment of benefits under 85.21.  Claimant later filed a petition for contribution under section 85.21, seeking repayment of all benefits paid from Liberty Mutual, the insurer on the claim as of the time of injury. Liberty argued that they were only responsible for benefits paid after an 85.21 order had been issued. The deputy found Liberty was on the hook for all benefits paid, but the commissioner partially reversed, finding that "because American Home failed to seek an Iow Code section 85.21 consent order prior to the arbitration hearing, Liberty Mutual

Pesicka v. Snap-On Logistics Co ., No. 19-1759 (App. July 21, 2021) involved a claim in which claimant initially suffered an injury resulting in a 13% impairment to his right leg, settled by the parties on an agreement for settlement basis.  Subsequent to the settlement agreement, claimant underwent eight additional surgeries, including surgeries to amputate all of the toes on his right foot.  Claimant filed a review-reopening action.  Claimant's IME physician found that claimant had established a 36% right foot impairment, which was equivalent to a 25% right lower extremity impairment.  Claimant was also found to  have a 5% impairment of the left knee.   At hearing, the hearing report indicated that the parties stipulated that the impairment was an impairment to the right leg  Claimant's counsel, however, also argued at hearing that claimant should receive a minimum of 100 weeks of benefits due to the valuations for the loss of all of his toes. The deputy found that claimant h

 The deputy and commissioner found that claimant had failed to establish a new, permanent injury to her arm and claimant's case against the employer and Second Injury Fund was dismissed.  In Mahoney v. Robert Half International and Second Injury Fund of Iowa, No. 20-0868 (Iowa App. June 30, 2021), the Iowa Court of Appeals agreed, finding that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence. Claimant had suffered an earlier injury to her right arm in 2006 as a result of an auto accident.  This accident resulted in surgery to the arm.  In 2015, claimant began working for Tax Act and alleged that she developed new problems in her arm.  She was diagnosed with tenosynovitis by Dr. Loth.  Dr. Sassman later found that claimant had a 3% impairment rating for the injury, which was found to be a new repetitive motion injury.  The deputy concluded, based on the testimony of the employer's representative, that claimant's work was not repetitive and found that cl

 Claimant suffered an injury at work which she believed resulted in a permanent total disability.  The commissioner found that the disability was only 40% and this determination was affirmed by the district court. The Court of Appeals affirms the commissioner's decision in Snitker v. Seabright Insurance Company and Birdnow Enterprises , No. 20-0986 (Iowa App. June 16, 2021).   Claimant suffered a back injury and eventually had a lumbar laminectomy and fusion.  The commissioner found claimant had a 40% industrial disability  The Court of Appeals notes that the determination of industrial disability is mixed question of law and facts and that the commissioner's decision will not be reversed unless it is irrational illogical or wholly unjustifiable.  At hearing, defendants had presented evidence demonstrating that claimant had the residual functional capacity for work, as well as vocational evidence demonstrating the existence of jobs claimant could perform.  Claimant presented co

In Des Moines Public Schools v. Hildreth , No. 20-0742 (Iowa App. June 16, 2021), the Court of Appeals addressed a case where the commissioner, facing contradicting medical evidence, concluded that claimant had met his burden of demonstrating that his stroke had arisen from a head injury that he had sustained at work.  The district court reversed the findings of the commissioner and the Court of Appeals, in turn, reversed the decision of the district court, reinstating the commissioner's decision.   Mr. Hildreth suffered a concussion at work in 2011, following a blow to the head.  He suffered severe problems following the injury and also suffered from neck and back problems.  Claimant retired and continued to experience symptoms.  In 2013, he suffered a stroke, which caused death as a result of an acute basilar artery infarction.  Claimant's spouse sought death benefits.  At hearing, claimant presented evidence from Dr. Francis Miller from Duke University.  Dr. Miller, citing m

Claimant in Rizvic v. Titan Tire Corporation , No.  20-1133 (Iowa App. May 12, 2021) suffered an electrocution injury, which he claimed led to difficulties with his cervical spine and back as well as headaches. Various doctors found that claimant's range of motion was near normal and also found that claimant was exaggerating his symptoms.  Dr.  Wolfe, however, found that claimant's symptoms were consistent with his low voltage injury.  The deputy found claimant had suffered permanent and total disability.  On appeal, the commissioner reversed and concluded that claimant was not a credible witness and had sustained no permanent impairment.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's take nothing decision. On appeal, the court of appeals finds that, based on substantial evidence before the commissioner, claimant had failed to establish causal connection between the injury and the disability claimed.  The court noted that the commissioner had cited the "numerous notat

Claimant in Drahozal v. Envoy Air, Inc ., No. 20-0027 (Iowa App. April 28, 2021) alleged that she was permanently and totally disabled due to frostbite in her fingers and a subsequent mental health injury and complex regional pain syndrome resulting from the initial work injury.  The commissioner found that claimant had suffered an 80% industrial disability due to the physical and mental health injuries, awarded healing period benefits and awarded penalty benefits for eleven delayed payments of benefits.  Penalty benefits for the mental health claim were denied.  Following appeals by both parties, the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner in its entirety. The Court of Appeals first addressed claimant's allegation that she was permanently and totally disabled.  Claimant had argued that due to her hand injuries, depression, age and education, there were no jobs in the community for which Drahozal could reasonably compete.  The claimant alleged she was an odd lot em

Clark v. Winnebago Industries , No. 20-0673 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), involved an injury to claimant's right hand, as well a claimant's allegations of penalty benefits and request for alternate medical care.   Following hearing, claimant was awarded a 10% impairment of the right upper extremity and alternate care at the Mayo Clinic.  Penalty benefits were denied.  The commissioner affirmed the decisions of the deputy. On the penalty questions, claimant had alleged penalty based on questions related to her marital status and whether she had suffered a permanent injury.  The penalty claims were denied on the basis that the issues were "fairly debatable."  Claimant testified at hearing she was married.  She could not find her marriage certificate and offered no tax returns confirming her martial status.  Winnebago presented a W4 showing that claimant was single.  Although the deputy ultimately found claimant was married, penalty benefits were denied because the questio

In John Deere Davenport Works v. Dickerson , No. 20-0658 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the agency found that defendant failed to establish a notice defense.  Claimant had filled out what was called a "near miss report" in which he noted he hit his head on a fixture.  Defendant argued that this statement lacked any claim that he was hurt or damaged.  The agency rejected the notice defense under 85.23(1).   The district court affirmed, finding that the statute does not require require that claimant provide the precise nature of claimant's injury, citing Alm v. Morris Barrick Cattle Co., 38 N.W.2d 161 (Iowa 1949).  The district court discussed the "near miss" report in detail and concluded that "when an employee physically strikes his head and determines that the incident warrants the completion and submission of a written report, an employer is fairly put on notice that the employee was likely in some degree of pain."  The district court found that the not

 In Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 20-0155 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the agency found that claimant was eligible for a 30% industrial disability award as well as additional healing period benefits.  The commissioner denied claimant's application for certain prescription medications. The district court affirmed on all three issues.  Defendant appeals on the two issues decided against it. In affirming the agency, the court noted it was the agency's duty to determine the credibility of witnesses, weight the evidence and decide the facts in issue.  On legal issues, the agency was given no deference.  On the healing period issue, defendant argued that the factors of 85.34(1) were not met.  the court disagreed, finding that claimant had not returned to work, was not medically capable of returning to substantially similar work and was not at MMI.  Defendant's argument that claimant's employment did not end and thus he did not meet the criteria for a second healing per

Claimant's estate in this matter argued that settlement of claimant's partial commutation case had been reached before claimant died.  The agency granted summary judgment to the employer and in Estate of Ed Albaugh v. UPS Freight , No. 20-0070 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant.  Claimant had been injured at work and was found to be permanently and totally disabled by the agency in 2014.  Claimant petitioned for partial commutation of benefits in March 2017. In June, defendant's attorney indicated that his client would agree to partial commutation if claimant agreed to an MSA, with a reversionary interest to Gallagher Bassett/UPS.  Plaintiff's attorney responded he was willing to consider the idea. By November, no further progress had been reached, but shortly before the May 1, 2018 hearing, defendant's attorney indicated that UPS would agree to commutation and run a new MSA.  She indicated that if th

In Housley v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 20-0016 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), claimant suffered an injury with her employer and was paid benefits, but did not formally settle the case or receive an a decision from the agency finding that claimant suffered a permanent injury.  Claimant subsequently filed a SIF claim, not naming the employer.  The agency dismissed the action, finding that claimant had failed to carry her burden of proving a second injury for Fund purposes.  The commissioner and district court agreed. On appeal, the court of appeals notes that under section 85.64, claimant must establish a loss of use, which must be work-related and claimant must also establish permanent disability from the injury.  The court noted that under Braden, the Fund's obligation could not be assessed until the employer's liability is fixed.  In this case, since there had  been no settlement or determination of a permanent work-related injury and the Fund had not agreed to the establ

In Regional Care Hospital Partners, Inc. v. Marrs , No. 19-2138 (Iowa App. Feb. 17, 2021), the court affirmed an agency decision in which claimant was found to have suffered back injuries and the need for surgery as a result of her work activities.  The deputy awarded a $50,000 penalty, which was reduced to $39,000 by the commissioner.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's award on appeal.   The appellate court first found that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's finding that claimant's injury was causally connected to her work activities.  The court noted that the opinions of Drs. Harbach and Kaspar were supportive of the decision of the agency.  The court also found that the commissioner had correctly determined claimant's rate and that the removal of a two week period in which claimant worked fewer hours than customary was supported by substantial evidence. On the penalty issue, the court noted that approximately $80,000 of benefits were unpai

 In Millanes-Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , No. 19-2077 (Iowa App. Jan. 21, 2021), the agency and district court denied benefits to claimant, finding that claimant suffered no permanent impairment from a fall that occurred in the course of his employment.  On appeal, claimant argues that the commissioner erred as a matter of law in considering only the AMA Guides to determine permanency.  Claimant also alleges that the agency erred in applying law to fact by failing to consider chronic pain as sufficient evidence of a change in physiological capacity in a scheduled member case.  Finally, claimant argues that the decision to deny permanent disability is not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant had a stipulated work injury and argued that he was entitled to permanency because of chronic pain and changes sustained in his left arm.  He argued that the commissioner erred by not considering any evidence beyond the AMA Guidelines when determining the extent of permanency.  Claiman

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu