Iowa Workers' Compensation

Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Anderson , No. 22-1328 (Iowa March 29, 2024) In this case of first impression,  claimant suffered simultaneous injuries to his arm and shoulder arising out of his work.  The commissioner concluded that because such simultaneous injuries were not encompassed under the listing of scheduled member injuries in 85.34(2)(a)-(u), it should be considered under the catch-all provisions of 85.34(2)(v), which requires injuries not encompassed under 85.34(2)(a)-(u) to be considered industrially under the Code.  The commissioner concluded that claimant had suffered a 50% industrial disability. This finding was affirmed by the district court. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three issues.  First, there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that claimant's injuries arose out of employment. Second, the injuries should be compensated as unscheduled injuries.  Third, the 50% award was excessive.  The Court concludes that there was substa

Davis v. Gordon Food Service, Inc. , No. 22-1944 (Iowa App. Feb. 21, 2024) Claimant suffered an injury at work.  Pursuant to the employer's drug policy, claimant took a drug test following the injury, which was positive for methamphetamines.  The test was not conducted in accordance with 730.5, which requires that two samples be taken to allow the person being tested to have the samples independently tested.  At hearing, the deputy concluded that the violation of 730.5 did not make the admission of the drug test inadmissible for purposes of the workers' compensation act.  The deputy also concluded that claimant did not rebut the presumption that he was intoxicated under 85.16 of the Code, despite the fact that claimant testified that he had not taken drugs for four days before the injury and there was no testimony that claimant was acting in an intoxicated manner and no evidence that intoxication led to the injury.  The commissioner affirmed, as did the district court on judici

Loew v. Menard, Inc. , No. 22-1894 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a low back injury resulting in a 20% functional impairment and a resulting 30% award of industrial disability.  Claimant suffered a second work-related back injury, which was compensated functionally as he continued to work for the employer earning wages in excess of those at the time of the injury.  As a result of the second award, claimant was found to have a 28% functional disability.  The commissioner concluded that the employer was not required to pay additional benefits for the second injury, as the employer received a credit for the 30% award that had previously been paid, which was in excess of the 28% functional award.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.  The Supreme Court accepted review of the claim. The Court first notes that Iowa's worker's is statutorily based and that the statute is "liberally construe[d] . . .in claimant's favor to effectuate the statute&#

P.M. Lattner Manufacturing Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a right shoulder injury in 2009, which ultimately resulted in a commutation settlement for 29.6% of the body as a whole.  Claimant subsequently suffered another injury to the right shoulder in 2018, following changes to the Code which made shoulder injuries unscheduled.  At hearing, claimant was awarded a 19% functional impairment for the injury to his right shoulder.  The employer argued that the entire award should be credited given that the earlier commutation resulted in a greater award than the second right shoulder injury.  The commissioner rejected this argument, but noted that defendants could arguably be entitled to a credit for the functional portion of the injury.  In this case, however, defendants failed to prove the amount of the credit and thus no credit was awarded. A secondary issue was also presented regarding payment of the IME.  The commissioner awarded that entire cost of the

Mid American Construction LLC v. Sandlin , No. 22-0471 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) In this action, the sole question presented to the Court was whether the cost of an "examination" conducted as a part of an independent medical examination was reimbursable to claimant or whether the amount to be paid was limited to the the component cost of the impairment rating under section 85.39 of the Code.  The commissioner had included the costs of the examination and the district court agreed.  On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court limited the amount to the cost involved in providing the impairment rating and awarded only $500 of the $2200 amount charged by the IME physician. On further review, the Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and holds that the cost of the examination was payable by the employer.  The Court begins by noting that section 85.39(1) and (2) both require an employee to submit to examinations as a part of the workers' compensation claims.  S

Kraft Heinz Co. v. Bynum , No. 23-0045 (Iowa App. Feb. 7, 2024) Claimant was initially employed with Kraft through a temporary employment agency.  Claimant was hired by Kraft in January of 2019.  In early February, claimant was diagnosed with a hernia and he notified the employer of his problems and need for surgery.  Following his return to work, he continued to have pain, was taken off work and received short term disability benefits.  Claimant wrote a letter to the employer in June of 2019 indicating that he had told numerous people at work about his injury and felt he should be receving workers' compensation benefits.  The commissioner concluded that the employer failed to prove that it did not receive timely notice as "it had not rebutted credible testimony that Bynum had informed multiple supervisors of the injury within the ninety-day period."  The district court concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's decision. On appeal, the Court of

Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats , No 23-0393 (Iowa App Feb. 7, 2024)  Claimant retired on October 31, 2018 and notified his employer of an alleged cumulative back injury on October 22, 2019.  The commissioner concluded that the claim was barred by section 85.23, as claimant had not notified the employer of his injury in a timely manner.  Claimant's discovery rule argument was rejected,  The district court also rejected the argument. At the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the the commissioner erred by not making separate determinations as to when claimant knew the nature, seriousness and compensable character of his injury.  The Court notes this argument, but indicates that following the appeal, the Supreme Court had issued its decision in Tweeten v. Tweeten , 2023 WL 8853036 (Iowa 2023).  The Court concluded that under Tweeten , the issue of whether the application of the discovery rule applied to only one or all three of the elements of the discovery rule "no longer guides

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions April 2024 Ramirez Ruiz v. Hy-Vee, Inc. , No. 22004416.01 (App. April 19, 2024) - Claimant suffered an injury to the left foot which the deputy found had extended into the body as a whole.  A 45% industrial disability was awarded.  The deputy agreed to claimant's rate and awarded payment of healing period, temporary partial and penalty benefits.  The penalty was for the underpayment of benefits (Humphrey, in a 58 page decision). On appeal, the commissioner affirmed the decision of the deputy without additional analysis.  4 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc. , No. 21-14161.02 (App. April 10, 2024) - The deputy concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate an injury arising out of employment.  The deputy also concluded that claimant failed to demonstrate a permanent disability (Gerrish-Lampe). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration t

  Hagen v. Serta/National Beddikng, LLC , No. 22-0684 (Iowa Feb. 5, 2024) Claimant failed to timely certify her expert witnesses and also failed to produce the reports of the experts at least thirty days before hearing.  The deputy found that the acceptance of the reports would be unduly prejudicial to the employer and excluded the reports.  The commissioner affirmed this decision, but the district court reversed that decision.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court on appeal and the Supreme Court accepted the case for further review. Under rule 876 IAC 4.19(3), claimant was required to certify experts within 120 days of hearing.  The rule also provides that reports from experts were to be provided within 30 days of hearing.  The rules note that evidence may be excluded "if the objecting party shows that receipt of the evidence would be unfairly prejudicial."  Hearing in the case was set for September 25, 2020. Although claimant was originally to ha

Tweeten dba Tweeten Farms v. Tweeten , 999 N.W.2d 270 (Iowa Dec. 22, 2023) In this action reviewing the district court decision, three issues were presented: Does the statutory bar under section 85.39(9) of the Code preclude further benefits following a compromise settlement between claimant and the Second Injury Fund? Does the discovery rule toll the statute of limitations following amendments to section 85.26(1) of the Iowa Code? How do amendments to section 85.39(2) of the Code affect reimbursement for independent medical exams?           The Supreme Court concluded that a compromise settlement with the Fund does not bar an action against the employer.  The Court further finds that, in actions based on a traumatic event, the legislative changes to 85.26(1) made in 2017 effectively eliminates the discovery rule.  Because of the decision on this third issue, the final issue concerning independent medical evaluations was not reached. Claimant suffered an injury to his right arm on July