Iowa Workers' Compensation

  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