Court of Appeals Reverses District Court Holding that Res Judicata Barred Review-Reopening Claims; Affirms Award of Permanent Total Disability

 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 not supported.  The agency disagreed and found that claimant had established a permanent total disability.  The district court reversed, finding that the review-reopening claims were barred by res judicata, claim preclusion and/or issue prreclusion.

Before the Court of Appeals, defendants argued the the agency decision in Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Agency, No. 5042527 (App. Jan. 16, 2020), barred claimant's recovery because a review reopening petition "was not an invitation to claimant to 'take a second bite at the apple' regarding issues that have already been litigated and decided."  The agency decision in Green, however, was reversed on appeal, North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Agency v Green, 989 N.W.2d 144, 148 (Iowa 2023).  The Court concluded that, at the time of the original decision, claimant had proved causation, but had not yet demonstrated permanency, which he subsequently demonstrated in the review-reopening proceedings.  Because the issue of permanency of the back and mental health issues had not been litigated, res judicata did not bar claimant's review-reopening action.  

The issue of permanent total disability was decision on the basis of substantial evidence.  The Court concluded that claimant had demonstrated that his physical condition had worsened and that this worsening had resulted in permanent total disability.  Defendants argued that there must be a "substantial" change to support review-reopening, but the Court concluded that this was not required by the statute.  The Court also concluded that substantial evidence supported claimant's mental health claim as well as the finding of permanent total disability and reinstated the decision of the agency. 


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