Iowa Workers' Compensation

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