Iowa Workers' Compensation

  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