Iowa Workers' Compensation

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises v. Badia , No. 21-1871 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2022) This action involved a settlement agreement in which the claimant, following the agreement to settle her case, attempted to propose alternative terms in the settlement agreement.  Defendants sought to enforce the settlement agreement it claimed to have with claimant.  During the course of these proceedings, claimant's counsel was deposed, with counsel not delving into matters that were the subject of attorney-client privilege.  Defendants moved for summary judgment, based on emails exchanged between counsel confirming the terms of the settlement.  Claimant resisted the motion for summary judgment, citing communication problems with counsel and an allegation to she did not authorize counsel to settle the matter on her behalf.  The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court noted that generally counsel has the power to bind a client to any agreement within the

  Tuttle v. Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner , No. 21-1246 (Iowa App. Dec 21, 2022) During the course of claimant's workers' compensation case, she sought discovery of surveillance conducted by the employer.  the employer stated that there was "none."  In a later DME, the employer indicated to the doctor that visual images existed demonstrated claimant as she walked into work and left work.  Claimant sought this material from the doctor via subpoena, which the doctor provided.  The employer sought a protective order regarding the subpoena and sought sanctions against claimant.  The deputy found that the agency lacked jurisdiction to quash the subpoena and indicated the employer would need to proceed with an action in district court.  The deputy also found, however, that the protective order could be challenged and issued a protective order in the form of Dr. Abernathey's fees, in the amount of $3900. Claimant filed an interlocutory appeal to the commiss

Medplast v. Pruis , No. 21-1650 (Iowa App. Dec. 7, 2022) In this action, claimant was found to have sustained injuries to his head, neck vision and mental health arising out of and in the course of his employment.  As a result of these injuries, he was found permanently and totally disabled.  The Court affirms on substantial evidence grounds. While climbing on a machine, claimant hit the right side of his head on a bar, which jarred his teeth and caused him to drop back to the floor.  He felt immediate pain in his neck, head and shoulders.  He went to the office and vomited while at work.  He was taken to the emergency room by his daughter when he returned home and was diagnosed with a very severe concussion and traumatic brain injury.  He was never able to return to work because of his continuing symptoms. Claimant treated for these injuries, but treatment was ultimately ended after neuropsychological assessments by Dr. Daniel Tranel.  He subsequently experienced a regression in his s