Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Penalty Benefits, Award of Healing Period

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 claimant alleged that his first compensation week was December 12 to 18 and his second week was December 19 to 24.   Claimant argued that he should have been paid on this schedule.  Defendants allege that section 85.30 provides that compensation payments are to be provided on the 11th day after the injury.  The commissioner adopted this interpretation and found that defendants made payments in a timely manner.  The Court of Appeals, citing Robbenolt and Goodman, a 2004 COA decision, concluded that the due date allowed for the passage of 11 days under 85.30 and then an additional 8 days to make payment (the eighth day after the first day of each subsequent compensation week).  The payments were found to be timely and thus penalty benefits were denied.

On healing period benefits, defendant argued that claimant reached MMI following his first surgery on January 17, 2015 and thus he was not entitled to healing period benefits.  The deputy found that claimant did not actually achieve MMI on January 17 and his symptoms were partially caused by the placement of the fusion instrumentation.  Thus, healing period benefits were due.  The COA affirmed this decision, finding that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence and also concluding that the commissioner did not  misapply Waldinger v. Mettler.  The commissioner noted that the recommendations for additional treatment, the fourth surgery and the fact that Marshall had not returned to work supported a finding that MMI did not occur on January 17.

Defendants also sought to provide evidence that claimant reached MMI in January 18.  The COA rejected this request, as had the district court.  The COA noted that section 17A.19(7) provides that additional evidence may, in certain circumstances be provided on judicial review.  The COA concluded that the evidence of later finding of MMI was not relevant to the issue of whether claimant reached MMI on January 17, 2015 and also noted that the parties had agreed that the deputy would  only hear evidence concerning healing period and penalty.  The Court found that the district court had not abused its discretion in failing to allow evidence of a later MMI date.