Iowa Workers' Compensation

XPO Logistics v. Ivester , No. 23-1357 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2024) Claimant was found to have sustained permanent total disability from a back injury affecting both his left and right side.  Although defendants admitted that claimant had sustained an injury to his left back, they argued that the symptoms from the left-sided back injury had largely abated and claimant was not entitled to PTD based only on his symptoms to the left back.  Defendants argued that the symptoms to the left back, which arose following surgery to his left back, were not related to his work.  In finding permanent total disability, the deputy and commissioner relied on the unrefuted opinions of two experts, Dr. Mathew and Dr. Segal, that the "ongoing low back and lower extremity symptoms, including his right-side symptoms, are related to the work injury of June 8, 2016." On appeal, the employer argued that since the surgery was to the left side, symptoms on the right side with no immediate onset could not

  Delaney v. Second Injury Fund , No. 23-0182 ((Iowa May 10, 2024) Claimant suffered an injury to her left leg and 33 years later suffered an injury to her right leg. Following surgery on the right leg, claimant developed lymphedema. She filed for benefits against the Fund and the commissioner concluded that because lymphedema was an unscheduled injury, claimant was not entitled to benefits against the Fund under 85.64. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that even if a second injury resulted in a sequella body as a whole injury, claimant was still entitled to consideration of the second injury under 85.64. The Supreme Court first concludes that the agency erred in concluding that a per se rule for vascular injuries that concluded that such injuries precluded an action against the Fund was erroneous.The Court rejects the reliance of the agency on Blacksmith v. All-American , finding that Blacksmith  did not support the st

Nordstrom v. Carmer , No. 23-1423 (Iowa App. May 8, 2024) Claimant suffered an accepted injury to her right shoulder in August of 2018. She subsequently developed pain in her left shoulder due to overcompensating for her right shoulder injury with her other arm. Claimant's IME physician opined that the left shoulder injury was due to overcompensation due to the right shoulder injury while defendants' doctor indicated that the left shoulder injury was due to rheumatoid arthritis and was not work-related.  The commissioner concluded that both shoulder injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and found that the injuries should be treated as unscheduled under 85.34(2)(v).  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissoiner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first concludes that the report of Dr. Segal, claimant's IME doctor, was supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that the decision concerning medical causation was essentially within the doma

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&#