Posts

Showing posts from September, 2022

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Alternate Medical Care

  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

Court of Appeals Awards Alternate Medical Care in Denied Liability Case

  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