Iowa Workers' Compensation

McKoy v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company , No 22-1787 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023)  Claimant was paid workers' compensation benefits for medical care and disability in the amount of $148,501.60.  She subsequently pursued a third party tort claim and settled with those parties for $175,000.  The insurance carrier filed an action under 85.22, seeking reimbursement of the entire amount of the workers' compensation settlement less a pro rata share of attorney's fees.  Claimant contested this action, arguing that the tort settlement represented a payment for pain and suffering and thus was not subject to reimbursement under 85.22.  The commissioner disagreed and awarded $116,666.67 to the employer.  The commissioner affirmed this order. Before the the district court and Court of Appeals, claimant argued that 85.22(1) only allows for reimbursement of benefits covered by workers' compensation, such as medical benefits and disability, but not for items such as pain and suffering.

  Interstate Power & Light Co v. Moyer , No. 22-1917 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023) Claimant suffered a crush injury to his foot and was awarded permanent partial disability benefits.  Three years later, claimant filed for review-reopening and was awarded permanent total disability.  Following the initial injury to the foot, claimant developed back problems that ultimately led to the implantation of a  lumbar neurostimulator and an operation (a gastrocnemius release) on claimant's calf.  Claimant continued to have low back and hip pain.  Claimant also developed mental health problems, diagnosed as pain disorder with psychological factors, including major depressive disorder. Defendants' doctors found the mental health problems were not work-related, but claimant's IME doctor concluded that the depression was related to claimant's physical injuries. At hearing, defendants argued that an increased award was barred by res judicata and that permanent and total disability was

  Archer Daniels Midland v. Williams , No. 22-2075 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023)  Claimant had an injury to the shoulder which he claimed extended beyond the shoulder to the body as a whole.  During the course of litigation, the Supreme Court decided Deng and Chavez , which addressed the issues concerning the shoulder that applied in this litigation.  At the district court level, Claimant shifted his approach to indicate that he had suffered a shoulder/arm injury, which should have been treated industrially.  Because Deng and Chavez had not been decided by the courts while claimant's case was being litigated, and this was the only issue raised before the commissioner, no decision was reached by the agency on the shoulder/arm issue. The Court concludes that error was not preserved, as claimant did not pursue the shoulder/arm issue until he reached the district court.  The district court had concluded that claimant preserved the issue because "the parties have always disputed whet

  Hormel Foods Corp. v. Yunior Tamayo-Perez , No. 23-0212 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023) In this procedurally confusing case, claimant initially filed for alternate medical care, with the claim later being dismissed when defendants agreed to provide care.  Claimant later filed a second application, alleging that defendants were interfering with care.  Following hearing, care in the form of the treatment recommended by the authorized physicians was ordered.  A third application was filed, seeking psychological evaluation with claimant's recommended evaluator.  The application was granted.  The second and third applications involved a spinal cord stimulator, which claimant ultimately decided not to pursue.  A fourth application was filed, asking for pain treatment and consideration of osteopathic manipulative therapy.  Defendants denied liability, based on a "stale" opinion by an orthopaedic spine physician.  The application was dismissed because of the denial of liability.  Cla

Thomas v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 23-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2023) Claimant initial suffered a compensable injury to his right eye in 2017.  He subsequently sustained several injuries in 2018 while stepping off a pontoon boat, which he attributed to a lack of depth perception as a result of his eye issues.  The deputy ruled in favor of claimant, but the commissioner reversed, finding that the 2018 injuries were not a sequelae of the original eye injuries.   The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  The Court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion and noted that although claiant speculated that his fall was caused by his right eye injuries, claimant could not specifically recall what happened and there were no witnesses to provide context.  The speculation of medical experts that vision loss caused the fall

  Delaney v. Second Injury Fund , No. 23-0182 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant's petition against the Second Injury Fund was dismissed because the deputy concluded claimant had not suffered a compensable second injury.  The deputy found that claimant's second injury, because it was combined with a non-scheduled injury rendered claimant's Fund claim non-compensable, citing Braden v. SIF.   This finding was affirmed by the commissioner and the district court. Claimant's second injury was an injury to her right lower extremity, which resulted in a right total knee arthroplasty, for which claimant was restricted from work for a time.  She ultimately had no restrictions from the knee replacement. Subsequent to being found at MMI, claimant developed post-surgery lymphedema, which was likely due to destruction of claimant's lymph from the knee replacement surgery.  Claimant's IME provided a 37% impairment of the lower extremity for the knee replacement and a 3% impai

  Spence v N&L Parkison Trucking, Inc. , No. 23-0144 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury at work.  The doctors who he saw related to the injury found that claimant had a rotator cuff injury, but noted claimant had related them to the pain in his shoulder from an earlier two weeks earlier.  An IME related claimant's injury to the work events and provided him with a 12% impairment to the body as a whole as a result of the injury.  The deputy found claimant was not credible in part due to his past crimes of dishonesty and denied benefits and the commissioner affirmed.  The district court affirmed the decision of the agency. The Court of Appeals rejected claimant's argument that the decision of the commissioner was not supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that due regard must be given to the commissioner discretion to accept or reject testimony based on witness credibility.  The di

  Stuart v. Dickten Masch Plastics, LLC , No. 23-0018 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant filed a review-reopening petition after she lost her job due to a plant closure.  Claimant had been "heavily" accommodated at work for her work-related disability, and was allowed to sit during the day and take breaks that  were not available to other workers.  She was unable to find work following the plant closure.  The commissioner ruled that when a worker loses her job as a result of a plant closure, she cannot show the required economic change regardless of any other factors preventing her from finding a new job and denied relief to claimant. At hearing, claimant testified that following the plant closure, she had attempting to find work, noting that she had sent out two dozen applications and  had only three responses, which were fruitless once the employers learned of her disability. Defendants presented testimony from a vocational expert regarding claimant's employability.   T

  Prairie View Management, Inc. v. Moran , No. 22-2023 (Iowa App. Sept. 27, 2023) Claimant emailed her employer with her resignation on December 5, 2019, with the resignation being effective on December 20.  On December 9, she was injured at work.  She submitted a formal letter of resignation a day after the injury, giving the same December 20 end date.  After the injury, claimant's duties were modified.  Claimant testified that she verbally sought to rescind her resignation, but did not file a written resignation.  The employer never offered work to claimant after December 20 and did not pay temporary benefits. The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to penalty benefits and temporary total disability benefits, as the employer had never offered work to claimant.  On judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the agency and concluded that claimant was not entitled to penalty or temporary benefits.  The Court of Appeals notes that under section 85.33,

  Liford v. Christensen Farms and Second Injury Fund , No. 22-1747 (Iowa App. Aug. 9, 2023) Claimant was denied benefits from the Fund for a left knee injury because this injury was found to be a sequella of an earlier right knee injury and not a separate and distinct second injury.  The left knee injury was traced by the physicians to claimant's "babying" his right knee following an injury to that knee.  The deputy found the left knee injury was a sequela, based on the opinions of Dr. Vincent and Dr. Kuhnlein.  These findings were affirmed by the commissioner and the district court. On appeal, claimant argues that the underlying decisions incorrectly interpreted Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa , 943 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Iowa 2020).  Claimant argues that Gumm should only be applied where a cumulative injury stems from the aggravation of an earlier injury, not in cases where a sequela injury develops.  The Court rejects this view of Gumm , finding that a second injury must b

P.M. Lattner Mfg. Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa App. June 7, 2023) The district court concluded that claimant was not entitled to payment for an IME and remanded the agency decision for consideration of the appropriate credit for a prior injury with the same employer.   The Court of Appeals remands to the commissioner to determine the fee related to claimant's right shoulder injury and also finds that the remand to determine credit was appropriate. Claimant had earlier suffered an injury at work to his right shoulder which resulted in a full commutation of benefits.  As a part of this settlement, the employer received a credit for permanent impairment to claimant's shoulder against future injuries to the same shoulder. Nine years later, claimant suffered another injury to the shoulder and obtained an IME for the shoulder.  The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to payment for the IME and found that defendant was not entitled to credit for the prior shoulder inj

  Shrum v. Boldt Group, Inc. , No. 22-0710 (Iowa App. June 7, 2023) In this action, the deputy concluded that claiant had sustained injuries to his right should, right bicep and right neck.  On appeal, the commissioner concluded that claimant's conditions did not arise out of employment and reversed the award.  Claimant appealed and the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. On review, claimant alleged that substantial evidence supported the "deputy's" findings that claimant's injuries arose out of employment.  The Court notes, however, that it is the commissioner's final decision that is subject to judicial review, not the deputy's decision, citing Giere v. Aase Haugen Homes, Inc. , 146 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Iowa 1966).  Thus, on review, the court's role was to determine whether the commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence. In affirming the decision of the commissioner, the Court found that the decision was "

  Barry v. John Deere Dubuque Works , No. 22-1000 (Iowa App. May 24, 2023) Claimant suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and was awarded an 11% whole person impairment rating following hearing.  Claimant subsequently developed additional problems with his bilateral hands and arms and sought review reopening based on changes in physical condition.  Dr. Mathew, who conducted an IME on the review reopening, concluded that claimant had additional permanent impairment and had also developed shoulder difficulties as a result of his work activities.  Additional restrictions were also imposed.  The agency concluded that claimant had not demonstrated a physical change in condition sufficient to justify additional benefits and the district court affirmed this holding.  The agency concluded that Dr. Mathew’s report was not credible because it was based on incorrect sections of the AMA Guides. The Court concluded that the agency had not abused its discretion in discrediting Dr. Mathew’s

  Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Authority , No. 21-0490 (Iowa April 14, 2023) Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer for an injury that occurred at work.  As a part of the case, the employer agreed that claimant's work had caused her cerebral hemorrhage.  The employer paid temporary benefits for the injury for three months, but the employer argued that the injury had not resulted in a permanent injury.  The agency agreed that no permanent injury had occurred and an appeal to the district court affirmed this result.  Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening claim (in a timely manner based on the earlier payment of temporary benefits), arguing that her injury had become permanent over time.  The agency, on summary judgment, concluded that claimant had previously litigated the issue of permanency and found that the claim was barred under res judicata principles. On judicial review, the district court concluded that a review reope

  Schoenberger v. Zephyr Aluminum Products No. 22-1613 (App. April 12, 2023) Claimant suffered an injury to his left shoulder, resulting in a rotator cuff repair.  Testing demonstrated tha tclaimant had ulnar neuropathy at the left elbow, which an IME found was a sequela to the original injury.  The deputy found claimant failed to demonstrate an injury that extended into the body as whole and 76 weeks of benefits were awarded due to the shoulder injury.  Claimant appealed, arguing that he had established an industrial disability.  The appeal decision failed to specifically address whether his injury qualified as industrial because it constituted a combined shoiulder and arm injury.  The district court found that error on this issue had not been preserved as claimant had not "previously and explicitly raised the question of a combined shoulder and arm injury or secured a ruling thereon." On appeal, claimant contended that raising his industrial disability argument before the

Blasdell v Linnhaven, Inc. , No. 21-1968 (Iowa April 7, 2023) This case involves the question of whether a married couple who were separated resulted in spousal desertion under section 85.42(1)(a) of the Iowa Code.   Claimant's wife had left the home in search of work elsewhere, and ultimately found work.  The couple never lived together again, but remained in contact, supported each other financially and never sought a divorce.  While working, claimant's wife suffered an injury resulting in permanent total disability.  Claimant's wife subsequently died from an overdose of prescription medication and claimant sought death and burial expenses.  The commissioner denied benefits, finding that claimant had willfully deserted his wife under 85.42(1)(a) without any fault by her.  The District Court reversed, concluding that the decision of the commissioner was not supported by substantial evidence.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the District Court and the Supreme

  Hagen v. Serta/National Bedding Co., LLC No. 22-0684 (App. March 29, 2023) In this action, claimant failed to provide timely notification of his expert physician and voactional expert.  The reports from the experts were also filed in an untimely manner, with both reports being provided approximately two weeks before the arbitration hearing.  Prior to the hearing, the employer asserted that the experts were not timely identified and their reports were not timely produced.  The employer argued that admission of the reports would be unduly prejudicial under 876 IAC 4.19 and urged that the use of the reports be precluded.  Claimant argued that the reports, although not timely produced, did not give rise to undue prejudice and that the remedy should be allowing defendants to produce rebuttal evidence.  The deputy decided to exclude the reports and claimant requested rehearing on the issue, which was denied.  The commissioner affirmed, finding that although defendants' argument that t

  Waterloo Community School District v. DeMaldonado No. 22-0845 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) Claimant had years of treatment, primarily physical therapy, for numerous injuries sustained while working.  After several years of treatment, she sought alternate medical care in the form of pain management recommended by her treating physician, which was denied by the employer.  In the application for alternate medical care, the deputy concluded that claimant had proved that the care provided was unreasonable but denied that the employer had abandoned care.  The school district appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the commissioner. As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals addressed an argument made by claimant that the employer's judicial review petition had not been timely filed.  The claimant had initially filed for alternate medical care, but had dismissed the petition and then refiled.  In the judicial review action, the employer had appealed and cited the cas

  Midamerican Construction LLC v. Sandlin No. 22-0471 (Iowa App. Feb. 22, 2023) This case solely involved the payment for an IME.  Defendants claimed that claimant was not entitled to reimbursement of the IME and if there was such reimbursement, the amount awarded was unreasonable. The commissioner awarded the full cost of the IME. As a part of the case, Dr. Kenndy rated claimant's impairment as 0%. The fee for the impairment was $174.25.  Claimant subsequently saw Dr. Taylor for an IME and he provided a 2% impairment.  As a part of the IME, Dr. Taylor also determined causation.  His charge was $2020.00.   Defendants argued that the IME should not be paid because Dr. Kennedy had not been retained by the employer, as required by 85.39 and IBP, Inc. v. Harker , 633 N.W.2d 322 (Iowa 2001).  The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's determination that defendants, through the medical case manager, had chosen Dr. Kennedy to perform the initial rating

Newton Community School District v. Hubbard-McKinney , No. 22-0030 (Iowa App. Feb. 22, 2023) In this claim, Ms. Hubbard-McKinney suffered an injury to her leg, which resulted in a 9% impairment.  The parties also agreed that of the 9% impairment, 7% of the 9% was attributable to a preexisting condition and 2% was directly caused by the fall at work.  Defendants argued that it was not responsible for that portion of the disability relating to the preexisting condition.  The commissioner rejected this argument and awarded claimant the entire 9% impairment. The Court indicated that the issue was one of apportionment and noted that the pre-2017 case of Warren Props. v. Stewart , 864 N.W.2d 307, 315 (Iowa 2015) referred to 85.34(7) as a rule of apportionment. On appeal, the employer relied on the language in 85.34(7) that an "employer is not liable for compensating an employee's preexisting disability that arose out of an in the course of employment . . . from causes unrelated to e

  Waterloo Community School District v. DeMaldonado , No. 22-0845 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) Claimant was injured at work and received treatment for several years.  After a time, she became dissatisfied with care, as the employer refused to authorize pain management, referred her to providers unsuited to treating her condition, lied about the authorization for care and interfered with care she sought from her own selected providers.  After filing an application for alternate medical care, the deputy ordered defendants to provide pain management with Dr. Mathew.  There was found to be insufficient proof that the employer had abandoned DeMaldonado's care.  Defendants were cautioned, however, not to interfere with the medical judgment of its own treating physician.  The district court affirmed the decision of the agency. On appeal, claimant first raised an issue of the timeliness of of the judicial review petition.  Claimant had filed an alternate care petition (No. 5059882.03) and then

  Regional Care Hospital Partners, Inc. v. Marrs No. 22-0959 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) This action, previously before the Court Regional Care Hosp. Part., Inc. v. Marrs , No. 19-2138 (Iowa App. Feb. 17, 2021) was a decision by the commissioner finding claimant had suffered a permanent total disability.  Defendants argued that because a FCE had placed claimant in the light work category, she was not permanently and totally disabled.  That FCE, however, had also indicated that claimant should limit sitting and standing to a rare basis, 1-5% of an 8 hour day.  Claimant had also testified that she spent most of the day laying down.  Defendants also aruged that a vocational report had found that jobs were available for claimant and claimant argues that the VE never met with her and that she could not perform the jobs listed by the VE.  Based on this, the deputy concluded claimant had an 80% industrial disability.  The commissioner awarded permanent and total disability benefits, finding tha

  2023 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions December 2023 LaGuerre v. JBS USA Holdings, Inc. , No. 21012994.01 (App. Dec. 29. 2023) - The deputy concluded claimant had suffered an injury to his right arm with a sequella injury to the right leg. The injuries were skin injuries. The deputy found that defendants were responsible for the injury under 85.34(2)(t) as a functional injury, not as industrial disability. and awarded 35 weeks of benefits (Lunn). On appeal, claimant argues that the injury should have been considered industrially under 85.34(2)(v) and should be awarded a 65% industrial disability.  The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy without providing additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Antunez-Erazo v. Brand FX Body Co. , Nos. 21012704.01, 21008748.01 (App. Dec. 28, 2023) - In these two actions, the deputy concluded that claimant had suffered a low back injury, but did not find permanency in the first action and also concluded