Iowa Workers' Compensation

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Hancock , No. 13-0197 (July 24, 2013) was a case in which defendants argued that motions to compel and motions in limine should not have been denied and also argued the claimant should not have been awarded temporary or permanency benefits.  The court concluded that the district court's ruling should be affirmed without opinion, based upon the thorough and well-reasoned opinion of the district court.  IRAP 6.1203.

Whirlpool Corp. v. Davis , No. 12-1962 (Iowa App. July 24, 2013) involved a finding by the commissioner that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  The court affirmed this aspect of the case on substantial evidence grounds, and also concluded that reimbursement for a deposition was statutorily limited to $150.00. Claimant suffered a back injury, resulting in a 7% impairment rating from defendants' doctor, Dr. Mark Taylor.  An IME from Dr. John Kuhnlein indicated that he could not say, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the current back problems were related to the original work injury, although the back problems were related to one of the incidents that had occurred at Whirlpool.  He provided a 5% impairment rating.  Claimant ultimately left his job and was found eligible for social security disability benefits. The deputy found that claimant was credible, and credited the findings of Dr. Taylor, Dr. Kuhnlein and Dr. Buresh.  He r...

In Lynn v. Pella Corp. , No. 12-1506 (Iowa App. July 24, 2013), the court addressed issues involving IRCP 1.510, which governs requests for admissions.   The court concluded that when a party objected to a request for admission, the objecting party was only required to state their objection, and not to admit or deny the request. Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim, and on February 16, 2010, filed a request for admissions.  Hearing had been set for April 7, 2010.  Defendants objected, stating that the admissions requests were untimely under the hearing assignment order.  Hearing was held on April 7, and the decision concluded that the objections were sufficient and were not deemed admitted.  The deputy also concluded that claimant failed to establish an injury arising out of and in the course of employment, which, not coincidentally, was the subject of the request for admissions.  The commissioner affirmed, citing IRAP 1.510, which requires that a...