Supreme Court Holds that Review Reopening Claim is Appropriate After Initial Finding that Claimant Had Not Demonstrated a Permanent Impairment

 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 reopening petition under 86.14 pressupposes a potential change in condition that would allow a temporary injury to morph into a permanent one.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the determination of the district court.

On further review to the Supreme Court, the Court noted the unique aspects of the review reopening process of 86.14, noting that this process was significantly different than that which occurred in tort actions and allowed a previously determined action to be reopened.  Both parties relied on the Court's earlier decision in Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, 777 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 2009), which had noted that res judicata principles were applicable even in review reopening cases.  The Court in Kohlhaas had noted that review reopening did not provide an opportunity to relitigate causation issues that were determined in an initial award or settlement agreement.  The employer argued in this case that claimant was relitigating whether the injury caused a permanent impairment, something which was barred by res judicata.

The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld the decision of the Court of Appeals.  The Court found that the employer had stipulated to a work-related injury and that a change in claimant's physical condition (in this case to result in a permanent impairment) was the very type of change that a review reopening petition was meant to address.  The Court noted that had there been a finding that the injury was not compensable, there would be nothing to reopen.  Ms. Green's case, however, was not such a case, as the compensability of the injury was not in issue, only the extent of claimant's impairment.

The Court noted that claimant was asking the agency to find that there was a current permanent injury, something which was not static but could change over time.  The Court stated that "review reopening proceedings invite parties to adjust their relative positions - upward or downward - based on later developments" and that the situation in claimant's case was the very situation review reopening was meant to address.  The Court cited a Kentucky case, Lakshmi Narayan Hosp Grp. Louisville v. Jiminez, 635 S.W.3d 580 (Ky. 2022) which held that review reopening was appropriate in the situation presented by claimant in this case.  The employer's argument that claimant could not reopen this action because she had never received an award was rejected, with the Court finding that defendants' claim "finds an empty shelf by looking in the wrong aisle."

The Court remanded to the agency, noted that basic questions existed about how the work injury contributed to her current condition and whether her compensation should be adjusted as a result.  The Court notes that a factual dispute on this issue exists, making summary judgment inappropriate.