Iowa Workers' Compensation

McKoy v. Twin City Fire Insurance Company , No 22-1787 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023)  Claimant was paid workers' compensation benefits for medical care and disability in the amount of $148,501.60.  She subsequently pursued a third party tort claim and settled with those parties for $175,000.  The insurance carrier filed an action under 85.22, seeking reimbursement of the entire amount of the workers' compensation settlement less a pro rata share of attorney's fees.  Claimant contested this action, arguing that the tort settlement represented a payment for pain and suffering and thus was not subject to reimbursement under 85.22.  The commissioner disagreed and awarded $116,666.67 to the employer.  The commissioner affirmed this order. Before the the district court and Court of Appeals, claimant argued that 85.22(1) only allows for reimbursement of benefits covered by workers' compensation, such as medical benefits and disability, but not for items such as pain and suffering.

  Interstate Power & Light Co v. Moyer , No. 22-1917 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023) Claimant suffered a crush injury to his foot and was awarded permanent partial disability benefits.  Three years later, claimant filed for review-reopening and was awarded permanent total disability.  Following the initial injury to the foot, claimant developed back problems that ultimately led to the implantation of a  lumbar neurostimulator and an operation (a gastrocnemius release) on claimant's calf.  Claimant continued to have low back and hip pain.  Claimant also developed mental health problems, diagnosed as pain disorder with psychological factors, including major depressive disorder. Defendants' doctors found the mental health problems were not work-related, but claimant's IME doctor concluded that the depression was related to claimant's physical injuries. At hearing, defendants argued that an increased award was barred by res judicata and that permanent and total disability was

  Archer Daniels Midland v. Williams , No. 22-2075 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023)  Claimant had an injury to the shoulder which he claimed extended beyond the shoulder to the body as a whole.  During the course of litigation, the Supreme Court decided Deng and Chavez , which addressed the issues concerning the shoulder that applied in this litigation.  At the district court level, Claimant shifted his approach to indicate that he had suffered a shoulder/arm injury, which should have been treated industrially.  Because Deng and Chavez had not been decided by the courts while claimant's case was being litigated, and this was the only issue raised before the commissioner, no decision was reached by the agency on the shoulder/arm issue. The Court concludes that error was not preserved, as claimant did not pursue the shoulder/arm issue until he reached the district court.  The district court had concluded that claimant preserved the issue because "the parties have always disputed whet

  Hormel Foods Corp. v. Yunior Tamayo-Perez , No. 23-0212 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023) In this procedurally confusing case, claimant initially filed for alternate medical care, with the claim later being dismissed when defendants agreed to provide care.  Claimant later filed a second application, alleging that defendants were interfering with care.  Following hearing, care in the form of the treatment recommended by the authorized physicians was ordered.  A third application was filed, seeking psychological evaluation with claimant's recommended evaluator.  The application was granted.  The second and third applications involved a spinal cord stimulator, which claimant ultimately decided not to pursue.  A fourth application was filed, asking for pain treatment and consideration of osteopathic manipulative therapy.  Defendants denied liability, based on a "stale" opinion by an orthopaedic spine physician.  The application was dismissed because of the denial of liability.  Cla