Iowa Workers' Compensation

In February of 2009, Snap-On Tools filed a petition for declaratory order with the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner.  Initially, the commissioner did not answer the petition, and a petition for judicial review was filed in district court.  The parties agreed that the commissioner would issue a ruling, and on June 14, 2010, the commissioner did so. All of the questions posed in the declaratory ruling related to section 85.39 of the Code.  Those questions were as follows: Must the employer use specific language in an 85.39 request? Can the employee veto or control the identity of the 85.39 physician? What amount of time before the examination is fair notice? Must mileage and meal expenses be paid in advance? What is a reasonable expense for meals? Under what circumstances must lodging be paid for in association with an 85.39 exam? Must the employee actually incur a lodging expense to be entitled to payment? Does 85.39 authorize an employer to request a me...

The Iowa Court of Appeals rejected defendants' argument that the opinion of claimant's expert had to be evaluated under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals. Frank v. FITS Mfg., No. 09-1419 ( Iowa App. May 26, 2010) http://www.iowacourts.gov/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20100526/0-186.pdf. Frank involved a claimant who developed respiratory problems, ostensibly at work. Claimant's expert witness, a pulmonologist from the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, believed that the constrictive bronchiolitis that claimant developed was related to her work. Defendants' experts, an industrial hygienist and an occupational physician, did not believe that the fumes at the workplace caused or contributed to claimant's condition. The defendants' specifically asked the Court of Appeals to adopt the Daubert standard as the law in Iowa. The court rejected this invitation, finding that the Iowa Supreme Court had previously declined to apply Daubert in L...

In what the deputy described as what may have been the longest alternate medical care hearing ever before the agency, the employer was found to have "actively interfered" with the care recommendations made by the treating doctor.   Dodge v. Excel Corp./Cargill Meat Solutions , No. 5032411 (AMC April 27, 2010).  The physician had restricted claimant to sitting duty only, with her leg elevated.  As a part of her light duty work, claimant was made to sit in an 8 x 10 foot room with as many as 11 other workers, and she testified that the nurses at Cargill never check her status.  Despite attempts by claimant to have the doctor change her work status and place her off work, the doctor indicated his hands were tied by the employer's indication that it had suitable work for the claimant. Although claimant's arguments were primarily about the treatment she had received at the hands of the employer, she also argued that the employer had interfered with the medical judgments...

On April 16, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Ballalatak v. All Iowa Agriculture Association , 2010 WL 1507635, No. 08-1588 (Iowa April 16, 2010) http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20100416/08-1588.pdf . Ballalatak involved a supervisor who was fired for advocating to two injured workers that they hire an attorney to ensure they received workers' compensation benefits. The district court held that even if the supervisor was fired for attempting to help the injured workers receive workers' compensation benefits, plaintiff failed to state a claim because there was no public policy that protected supervisors or coemployees from termination for aiding injured employees in collecting workers' compensation benefits. In affirming the decision of the district court, the Supreme Court noted that employers may generally fire an at-will employee at any time. In order for the public policy exception to the at-will rule to apply, said the court, the...

Following the passage of section 85.34(7), the constitutionality of the bill (HF 2581) of which that provision as a part was challenged in the case of Godfrey v. State of Iowa , 752 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2008). http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20080620/05-1691.pdf . In Godfrey , the court found that the claimant lacked standing to challenge the provisions of the bill, and therefore did not rule on the constitutionality of that provision. More recently, the constitutionality of the bill of which the apportionment language was a part was again challenged, in Quaker Oats v. Main , 2010 WL 200420, No. 08-1507 (Iowa App. Jan. 22, 2010). http://www.iowacourts.gov/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20100122/9-896.pdf . In Main , the court found that the claimant's constitutional challenge was not filed in a timely manner, and hence could not be heard by the court. The court indicated that since the challenge had not been filed before HF 2581 was codified in January of...

Reflecting the focus on the budget and economic issues, the 2010 General Assembly passed nothing of import relating to workers' compensation. A number of bills had been on the table, including the following: - Choice of Doctor - Use of Assets in Second Injury Fund to Reimburse Commissioner - Allowing consideration of certain scheduled injuries industrially where earning capacity was negatively impacted - Including the full value of overtime in determining WC rates - Allowing for cost of living adjustments for certain claims - Modification of alternate care procedures for medical treatment - Denying coverage for certain willful acts - Excluding injuries incurred in voluntary recreational programs Because the 2010 session was the second year of the session, all of these bills will need to start from ground zero if they are introduced again. Thus, certain bills that have already passed one chamber will have to begin the process again in the newly constituted Senate and Ho...

A recent decision addressing §85.34(7) of the Code has been issued.  In Quaker Oats v. Main , No. 08-1507 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan 22, 2010), 2010 WL 200420, the Court of Appeals addressed two issues regarding the apportionment section of the workers’ compensation law.  The court found that §85.34(7) applied to successive injuries with the same employer as long as one of the injuries occurred after September 7, 2004, the effective date of the legislation.  The commissioner had earlier ruled in Main that both injuries had to take place after September 7, 2004 in order for the legislation to apply, but the district court reversed this finding, and this conclusion was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Main court also addressed the issue of the constitutionality of the provisions of House File 2581 that resulted in the legislation codified as §85.34(7).  The legislation had been attacked as being violative of the single subject provisions of the Iowa Constitution, Art. ...