Appeals Court Affirms Denial of Second Injury Fund Benefits

 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 be "distinct and separate."  The Court concludes that aggravation is one way of determining whether an injury is distinct and separate, but not the only means. Claimant also argues that Second Injury Fund v. Greenman, No 05-0855 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2006) supports the conclusion that a sequella injury can be a separate injury for Fund purposes.  The Court also rejects this premise, since Greenman found that the second injury could not be "merely a consequence" of the first.  Substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant did not have a separate and distinct second injury.

Claimant also argued that the "separate and distinct" rule did not apply to the Fund because of contradictory purposes between the application of this rule to the employer and to the Fund.  The Court rejects claimant's argument.  The Court notes that the Second Injury Fund was intended to encourage employers to hire previously disabled employees while the "separate and distinct" rule was intended to prevent claim splitting when employees attempt to collect on cumulative injuries.  The Court notes that 85.64 suggests the commissioner should analyze for two distinct injuries, "as the Code references a 'previous' injury, and the second injury must be deemed compensable.'"  Since there was substantial evidence to support the fact the left knee injury was a sequela, there was not a compensable second injury and claimant did not establish a compensable claim against the Fund.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

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
Read more

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu
Read more

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions April 2024 Burden v. United Parcel Service , No. 21013153.01 (App. April 24, 2024) - Claimant was found credible by the deputy, who concluded claimant had suffered a left knee injury as well as a neck injury.  Because claimant continued to work for more wages than at the time of the injury, the claim was considered functionally and claimant found to have a 27% whole body impairment (Walsh). Defendants argued that claimant had not sustained a compensable neck injury on appeal and urged that Dr. Taylor's IME should not have been credited over claimant's treating physician.  The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy.  The commissioner noted that claimant had stated he had symptoms that were indicative of cervical spine involvement early in the injury process.  The commissioner noted that the treating neurosurgeon had clearly identified a cervical injury and that this bolstered the credibility of Dr. Taylor's IME. 5 m
Read more