Iowa Workers' Compensation

  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