Iowa Workers' Compensation

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises v. Badia , No. 21-1871 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2022) This action involved a settlement agreement in which the claimant, following the agreement to settle her case, attempted to propose alternative terms in the settlement agreement.  Defendants sought to enforce the settlement agreement it claimed to have with claimant.  During the course of these proceedings, claimant's counsel was deposed, with counsel not delving into matters that were the subject of attorney-client privilege.  Defendants moved for summary judgment, based on emails exchanged between counsel confirming the terms of the settlement.  Claimant resisted the motion for summary judgment, citing communication problems with counsel and an allegation to she did not authorize counsel to settle the matter on her behalf.  The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court noted that generally counsel has the power to bind a client to any agreement within the

  Tuttle v. Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner , No. 21-1246 (Iowa App. Dec 21, 2022) During the course of claimant's workers' compensation case, she sought discovery of surveillance conducted by the employer.  the employer stated that there was "none."  In a later DME, the employer indicated to the doctor that visual images existed demonstrated claimant as she walked into work and left work.  Claimant sought this material from the doctor via subpoena, which the doctor provided.  The employer sought a protective order regarding the subpoena and sought sanctions against claimant.  The deputy found that the agency lacked jurisdiction to quash the subpoena and indicated the employer would need to proceed with an action in district court.  The deputy also found, however, that the protective order could be challenged and issued a protective order in the form of Dr. Abernathey's fees, in the amount of $3900. Claimant filed an interlocutory appeal to the commiss

Medplast v. Pruis , No. 21-1650 (Iowa App. Dec. 7, 2022) In this action, claimant was found to have sustained injuries to his head, neck vision and mental health arising out of and in the course of his employment.  As a result of these injuries, he was found permanently and totally disabled.  The Court affirms on substantial evidence grounds. While climbing on a machine, claimant hit the right side of his head on a bar, which jarred his teeth and caused him to drop back to the floor.  He felt immediate pain in his neck, head and shoulders.  He went to the office and vomited while at work.  He was taken to the emergency room by his daughter when he returned home and was diagnosed with a very severe concussion and traumatic brain injury.  He was never able to return to work because of his continuing symptoms. Claimant treated for these injuries, but treatment was ultimately ended after neuropsychological assessments by Dr. Daniel Tranel.  He subsequently experienced a regression in his s

Knaeble v. John Deere Dubuque Works , No. 21-1934 (Iowa App. Nov. 17, 2022) Claimant suffered three injuries while working for John Deere - one to his right leg and left foot in 2014, a second to his hands and finger in 2017 and a third to his shoulder in 2017.  On the 2014 petition, claimant was awarded a 30% industrial award.  A second petition against the Fund was consolidated with the third petition against the employer.  The deputy concluded that claimant had an 85% industrial loss for the first and second injuries and that the industrial loss for the third injury was 5%.  The deputy determined that the industrial disability for all three injuries was 92%.  The commissioner affirmed the 85% industrial loss.  Contrary to the decision of the deputy, however, the commissioner found that the employer only owed 5% industrial disability due to the shoulder injury.  The deputy found that Deere was responsible for a combined industrial disability of 35% (the original 30% industrial plus 5

  Denemark v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 21-1851 (Iowa App. Sept. 21, 2022) Claimant injured his arm and originally had injections for the pain that developed in the wake of the injury.  This did not alleviate the pain and an arthroscopic surgery and debridement of the TFCC was recommended by Dr. Kuo.  On September 18, ADM indicated that it would investigate causation before authorizing surgery.  The surgery was authorized on October 21 and care was transferred to UIHC at the request of Dr. Kuo's office.  Surgery was authorized for December 29. This surgery was rescheduled for January 12.  A Covid screening was required prior to surgery, but ADM failed to schedule transportation to the screening.  The surgery was rescheduled and ultimately took place on January 29. In the midst of these activities, claimant filed a request for alternate medical care alleging that defendant sent its safety manager to claimant's medical appointments, improperly challenged causation and

  West Central Cooperative v. Sullivan , No. 21-1559 (Iowa App. Aug. 31, 2022) In the original administrative action in this case, claimant, who had an injury in 2011, sought authorization for a spinal cord stimulator, which had been recommended by an authorized treating physician.  A DME physician, Dr. Chen, opined that the continuing back problems of claimant were not causally related to his work activities.  Claimant filed for alternate medical care and the action was dismissed under section 85.27 and 876 Iowa Administrative Code 4.48 because of defendants' denial of liability.  Claimant asked for rehearing, arguing that the issue of liability had already been established in the initial administrative proceeding.  This request was denied.  A contested case proceeding was initiated by claimant, who argued that the continuing back problems were related to the work injury and further alleged that he was entitled to the SCS trial.  The deputy found that the SCS trial was not reasona

  Tilton v. H.J. Heinz Company , No. 21-1777 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) In a prior proceeding, the Court of Appeals remanded claimant's case to the commissioner for a redetermination of the date claimant knew or should have known her back injury would have a permanent adverse impact on claimant's employment.  The court concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant knew of the permanent adverse impact on September 8, 2010 was not supported by substantial evidence. On remand, the deputy concluded claimant should have known her injury had a permanent adverse impact on her employment on February 4, 2010, based on a chiropractor's report that her injury was permanent and taking her off work for two to four weeks.  The deputy concluded the claim was barred under section 85.23.  On judicial review, the district court reversed, finding that as claimant did not have a doctor's note giving her permanent restrictions on September 8, 2010, she could not have had notice

  Central Iowa Fencing v. Hays , No. 21-1530 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work which resulted in his physician restricting him from returning to work.  Because of this restriction, the employer would not place claimant back to work, at the same time denying his workers' compensation claim.  Claimant applied for and was granted benefits because the employer had no work available or was not willing to accommodate work restrictions.  The deputy ultimately found that claimant had suffered a cumulative low back injury.  Because claimant had not reached MMI, only temporary benefits were awarded.  The commissioner affirmed this decision. On judicial review, the district court found that there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the commissioner and affirmed that decision. The Court of Appeals first dismisses defendants' argument that because claimant did not specifically plead a cumulative injury, the agency could not have found such an inju

  Harrell v. Denver Findley & Sons, Inc. and Second Injury Fund , No. 21-0827 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) In this action, the deputy originally concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled with respect to the SIF.  The deputy found that under 85.34(2)(x), the Fund was not entitled to a credit because of a prior left knee surgery, the only evidence of which was raised at hearing by claimant, who noted that he had previously had a left total knee replacement.  No medical evidence or rating was provided concerning this injury.  On appeal, the commissioner found that the Fund was entitled to the credit, based on his own reading of the AMA Guides.  The commissioner reduced the permanent total disability award to 75% despite the fact that the parties had not raised this as an issue. On judicial review, the district court found that the Fund was entitled to credit, but remanded the case to the agency, finding that the commissioner should not have modified the PTD finding wit

  Havill v. Quaker Oats Company , No. 21-1740 (Iowa App. June 15, 2022) In this tinnitus case, the workers' compensation commissioner dismissed the claim, finding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.  The commissioner concluded that claimant knew or should have known of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable nature of the condition by fall of 2016 and yet did not file a claim until June of 2019.  In reaching this conclusion, the commissioner found that given the incidents and diagnoses made of tinnitus by the fall of 2016 and the fact that claimant sought care at that time, combined with a condition severe enough that claimant had an emotional reaction and needed to lie down, was sufficient to demonstrate claimant knew of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable character of the injury at that time.  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.   The Court of Appeals finds that substantial evidence supported the commissioner

  American Home Assurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. , No. 20-0769 (Iowa App. July 21, 2021) In this action, two insurers were involved in a workers' compensation action.  The deputy initially ordered American Home to pay claimant 125 weeks of PPD benefits and this award was affirmed.  American Home paid the benefits.  Claimant subsequently sought review reopening, at which time American Home discovered it was not the insurer on the date of injury in question. American Home filed an Application and Consent Order for Payment of Benefits under 85.21 and subsequently filed a petition for contribution under 85.21 for benefits paid to date as well as benefits due as a result of the pending RR petition.  Liberty filed a motion for summary judgment, indicating that contribution or reimbursement could only be obtained after an 85.21 order was issued and because an order was not issued until January 3, 2017, no benefits issued prior to that date were recoverable.  The commissioner

  Tripp v. Scott Emergency Communication Center , No. 21-0841 (Iowa June 3, 2022) Mental injuries in the workers' compensation context have long been treated differently than physical injuries despite the fact that the statute does not explicitly create such a distinction.  In Dunlavey v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co. , 526 N.W.2d 845 (Iowa 1995), the Court concluded that mental injuries that did not involve a physical component were compensable under the statute.  The Court, however, concluded that a claimant must demonstrate both medical causation and "legal causation."  The latter phrase requires an employee to show that the mental injury resulted from "workplace stress of greater magnitude than the day-to-day mental stresses experienced by other workers employed in the same or similar jobs, regardless of employer."  In Brown v. Quik Trip , 641 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 2002), the Court relaxed the legal test in situations where the claimant's mental injury was

  ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Moore , No. 21-0339 (Iowa App. May 25, 2022) Claimant suffered a pop while twisting to lift a stack of boxes and felt immediate pain in his left hip.  Claimant reported his injury and subsequently went on vacation.  His pain continued and when he returned to work he was informed his injury was no longer considered work-related.  Claimant sought care on his own and was advised by his doctor to avoid activities that would aggravate his condition.  Claimant also developed back pain.  He received treatment in the form of medications, physical therapy and facet injections. Following the hearing on his claim, the deputy found, based on the reports of claimant's doctor and Dr. Segal, that claimant had suffered a work-related injury.  Claimant was found to have suffered a 40% industrial disability.  The commissioner affirmed and the district court affirmed the commissioner based on substantial evidence.   The Court of Appeals noted that the factual finding of causa

  Chavez v. MS Technology, LLC, No. 21-0777 (Iowa April 1, 2022) Deng v. Farmland Foods, Inc. , No. 21-0760 (Iowa April 1, 2022) In these two cases, the Supreme Court addressed, for the first time, whether the 2017 changes made by the Iowa Legislature creating a a new 85.34(2)(n) and a new scheduled member injury for injuries to the "shoulder" was limited to the glenohumeral joint or extended beyond that joint to other structures affecting the shoulder.  The question raised was whether injuries outside of the glenohumeral joint should be considered to be industrial disabilities or limited to the 400 weeks of benefits under 85.34(2)(n).  The Court, in an opinion announced in the Chavez  case, held that shoulder injuries were not limited to those affecting the glenohumeral joint and further found that shoulder cases are to be determined according to the 400 week schedule in 85.34(2)(n). Claimant Chavez was found to have a full thickness rotator cuff tear and underwent a shoulde

  Earling Grain and Fee v. Martin , No. 21-1446 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022) Claimant was found to be permanently and totally disabled by the commissioner, contrary to the employer's position that claimant had not reached MMI.  On appeal, the Court notes that its review was severely circumscribed and that the job of weighing the evidence was one for the commissioner. The Court finds that defendants raised the same arguments that had been raised before and rejected by the commissioner.  Because the findings of the agency with respect to claimant's reaching MMI were supported by substantial evidence, the decision of the agency was affirmed.

  City of Harlan v. Thygesen , No. 21-0265 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022) In this hearing loss case, claimant suffered a hearing loss some ten years prior to the time claimant filed his claim and knew that his injury was work-related.  Claimant alleged that despite these facts, the statute did not begin to run on his claim until either 2014 (when he was provided with audiogram results) or 2015 (the date assigned by the employer because he did not appreciate the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury until those dates.  Defendants alleged that claimant failed to timely notify them of the claim and failed to timely file the claim. The commissioner found that claimant, despite being aware of hearing loss and the fact that the hearing loss was caused by employment, did not appreciate the severity of the claim, crediting the testimony of claimant.  The district court reversed and found that claimant knew the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of

  Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Authority , No. 21-0490 (Iowa App. March 2, 2022) Claimant's initial claim resulted in a decision in which the commissioner concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate a permanent brain injury arising out of employment.  The district court affirmed, but remanded for findings concerning past medical expenses.  Claimant subsequently filed a petition for review-reopening, asserting permanent and total disability.  The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because claimant could not relitigate her claim for permanency.  The deputy granted the motion, finding that the issues had been ripe for determination earlier and had been decided against her.  The commissioner affirmed. On judicial review, the district court reversed the commissioner, finding that the "the commissioner's conclusion that Green's lack of award renders it incapable of being increas

  ABF Freight System Inc. v. Hilliard , No. 21-0855 (Iowa App. Jan. 27, 2022) Claimant suffered a neck injury in 2016 and was awarded a 30% industrial disability.  He later filed a request for review-reopening and was awarded an additional 20% by the deputy and commissioner.  This finding was affirmed by the district court. On appeal, the employer argued that there had been no changes in claimant’s physical condition and posited that claimant’s physician had not placed him on restrictions.  The court finds that the decision of the agency finding that there had been a change in physical condition was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, claimant’s physician opined that claimant’s condition had declined since his surgery and that he had developed chronic, debilitating pain.  The doctor also explained that he did not impose restrictions because they “don’t work . . . In general, I don’t impose them if - unless absolutely necessary.”  The court finds that this evidence, plus th

Mercy Medical Center v. Lund , No. 21-0523 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant worked at a job at Mercy Medical Center that required assembling materials for surgery, which required heavy work exerting up to 65 pounds of push/pull force and the lifting of up to 50 pounds sometimes and 40 pounds frequently.  While lifting trays over her head, she felt pain in the right side of her neck and both shoulders felt tight and sore.  She was diagnosed with bilateral shoulder impingement by Dr. Harbach.  His notes indicated that claimant hurt after performing all of her work duties.  Claimant was also seen by an ARNP who noted that claimant was injured lifting surgical pans.  Dr. Aviles diagnosed a full thickness rotator cuff tear and recommended surgery.  He later indicated that he did not believe the rotator cuff tear resulted from work.  Further medical care from the employer was denied. Dr. Davick saw claimant and provided treatment.  Claimant's counsel summarized a meeting with Dr. Davic

  Cochran v. Quest Liner, Inc. , No. 21-0288 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work and was paid healing period benefits for a time.  Defendants sent claimant a notice that healing period benefits would be ended as required by section 86.13.  Claimant alleged that he was entitled to additional healing period benefits and the arbitration decision found that claimant was entitled to continuing healing period benefits.  Penalty benefits were denied as the commissioner indicated it was reasonably debatable whether claimant was entitled to continuing benefits. Claimant appealed, arguing that defendants failed to obtain an impairment rating or do any further investigation to determine if he was entitled to further benefits after their authorized treating physician placed him at MMI.  On appeal, the court finds that the issue raised implicates the application of law to fact standard of review and that the decision will only be overturned if the application was irrationa

  Taylor v. Iowa State University Extension , No. 20-1397 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant was in a car accident as she was heading back to her office after giving a presentation.  She informed an office assistant of the accident and sought treatment from a chiropractor the next day.  When she sought treatment, she did not indicate her injuries were related to work.  Claimant testified that she spoke with her supervisor about the accident and the supervisor indicated the injuries were not work-related.  The supervisor testified she never told claimant the injuries were not work-related.  Claimant later told the employer her accident was work related after consulting an attorney some 22 months after the accident.  The agency concluded that claimant had not provided notice of the injury within 90 days of the incident and the case was dismissed under section 85.23. As an initial matter, the court addressed a motion to strike claimant's reply brief because claimant allegedly raised i

  2022 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions The following is a compilation of workers' compensation appeal decisions decided in 2022, arranged by month. December 2022 Ernster v. SIF , No. 19003583.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2022) - Claimant was found not to be a credible witness at the arbitration level and benefits were denied in this SIF only action.  Claimant had settled the underlying action with the employer on an agreement for settlement. The deputy concluded that claimant had not demonstrated a second qualifying loss to her left leg and thus no SIF benefits were awarded (Fitch).  The commissioner affirms, noting that the deputy is to be given deference in the credibility determination. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.   Hayes v. Georgia Pacific Corp. , No. 5067990.02 (App. Dec. 29, 2022) - In this review-reopening petition, claimant sought an increase in the 25% industrial disability previously awarded for a low back injury.  The deputy found there had been a chang