Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Swiss Colony v. Deutmeyer , 789 NW2d 129 (Iowa 2010), Kent Deutmeyer worked 30 hours a week at Swiss Colony at the time of his workers' compensation injury.  That injury ultimately required an amputation to the knee, and complaints of phantom pain after the amputation.  During the time he worked at Swiss Colony, claimant also worked 40-45 hours per week at Webber Metals.  The questions presented to the court involved the correct rate for claimant, as well as the extent of industrial disability (claimant left work following his injury, again working in two jobs, but for considerably less money). Also involved was the question of whether the employer could obtain credit for alleged overpayments, which involved section 85.34(5) of the statute. In determining the standard of review, the court noted that it had previously found that interpretation of Chapter 85 had not been delegated to the Commissioner.   Mycogen Seeds v. Sands , 686 N.W.2d 457, 464 (Iowa 2004)...

Solland v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , 786 NW2d 248 (Iowa 2010) provided the court with an opportunity to decide an issue of costs.  The court of appeals had assessed costs equally to the claimant and the Fund, despite the fact that claimant had prevailed in all respects before the court of appeals.   Solland  began as a case in which claimant pursued his case against the Fund for two bilateral injuries. At the court of appeals level, the court found in favor of claimant, citing Gregory v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , 777 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 2010) and Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Kratzer , 778 N.W.2d 42 (Iowa 2010).  On the costs  issue, the court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court approving the assessment of costs by the commissioner and taxed costs of appeals to both parties equally. The Supreme Court found that Solland was the successful party on appeal, "prevailing on all substantive issues." The court found it clearly erroneous, given t...

Horseplay is not an area that is addressed frequently by the Supreme Court, so the decision in Xenia Rural Water District v. Vegors ,  786 NW2d 250  (July 2010) was an interesting departure from most workers' compensation cases before the court.    The facts of the case are somewhat unusual.  Claimant and a co-worker were in the habit of acknowledging each other by activities such as waving the boom of a back hoe at the other.  On the date of injury, claimant had his hands full and acknowledged the other employee by "wiggling his butt" at him.  The co-employee the attempted to bump claimant with the mirror of his truck, but ended up hitting him with the truck bed. The commissioner found claimant entitled to benefits, holding that the burden of proving horseplay was on the employer.  The commissioner also rejected a defense that the injury was caused by a willful act of a third party.  The district court reversed and denied benefits to...