Court of Appeals Affirms Credit to Employer in Claim Against Second Injury Fund and Employer

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% for the shoulder injury).  The commissioner found that imposing an 85% award against the Fund and an additional 92% against the employer would result in a double recovery.  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.

Claimant argues that 85.34(7), the apportionment statute, limits its application to successive disabilities with the same employer.  The Court of Appeals finds that the issue was not whether the 2014 and 2017 injury were compensable under section 85.34(2) but the effect of the intervening 2017 hand/finger injury.  The commissioner and Court indicated that the effect of the hand/finger injury could not be ignored in assessing the later shoulder injury.  The Court concludes that the commissioner's finding that an 85% award against the Fund and 92% award against the employer would result in a double recovery was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.  The Court describes the commissioner's concern with double recovery as "understandable," notwithstanding the fact that the words of the statute which creates the apportionment regime applies only in cases involving successive injuries with the same employer and does not mention the Second Injury Fund.  

The Court also rejects the claimant's contention that his combined disability for the shoulder injury was only 35%, finding that the commissioner's determination was supported by substantial evidence.