Court of Appeals Concludes Claimant Suffered Compensable Second Injury, Reverses Denial of SIF Benefits

 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% impairment of the whole person under the AMA Guides for a lower extremity impairment due to peripheral vascular disease.

On review, the Court concludes that the agency's reading of Braden was too broad.  Although section 85.64 does enumerate specific parts of the body, according to the Court, nothing in the provision states the second loss of use must be limited to the enumerated parts.  Citing George and Gregory, the Court concluded that the focus of the analysis must therefore be on whether the claimant sustained a permanent loss of at least two enumerated members.  In this case, claimant desmonstrated a first loss to her left leg and a second loss to her right leg and this, according to the Court, triggered Fund benefits.  Because the decisions of the agency and district court were based on erroneous interpretation of law, the case was remanded to the agency for further proceedings.