Court of Appeals Overturns Commissioner's Summary Judgment in Favor of Employer, Affirming District Court Reversal

 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 increased is illogical."  The district court found that a review-reopening action presupposes a potential change in condition and noted that such a change may still be causally related to a work injury.  The differences between the parties as to whether a temporary injury can morph into a permanent injury was a material factual difference which defeated summary judgment.  The employer appeals.

The Court of Appeals finds that the premise of defendants' argument (that a prior finding of non-permanency bars a review-reopening action) was not supported by caselaw or section 86.14.  Citing Bieir Glass v. Brundage, the court notes that review-reopening is available even when there is only an award of medical benefits.  Under Kohlhaas, the court finds that the issue presented in this case was not identical to that raised in the initial proceeding, because Green was arguing that her current condition (rather than her condition at the time of the initial decision) constituted a worsening of her physical condition.  Thus, summary judgment was not appropriate.  Because there was a genuine issue of material fact, defendants were not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  Although it may ultimately be determined that there was not a change in claimant's condition, claimant was entitled to present her evidence with respect to the change.  The case was remanded to the commissioner for further proceedings.