Posts

Showing posts from June, 2023

Court of Appeals Concludes that Claimant was Entitled to Payment for IME

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

Appeals Court Affirms Commissioner's Denial of Benefits to Claimant

  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 "