Court of Appeals Affirms Decision of District Court Without Opinion

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.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions August 2025 Lee v. John Deere Dubuque Works and SIF , No. 19006744.02 (App. Aug. 1, 2025) - In this action, the deputy concluded that claimant had suffered an injury to her right arm resulting in a 5% permanent impairment. The deputy also concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate a permanent mental impairment and rejected claimant's argument that she was permanently and totally disabled.  The deputy rejected claimant's argument that she suffered a first impairment for Fund purposes (Grell).  On appeal, the commissioner affirms the decision without additional analysis.  4 months from arbitration to appeal decision. July 2025 Wenzel v. Housby Mack, Inc. , No. 23002987.01 (App. July 16, 2025) - The claim in this case is that claimant's distal clavicle excision should be found to result in a 10% scheduled member injury to the shoulder rather than a 3% injury (Pals). Claimant argues that the commissioner's determination in...
Read more

Court of Appeals Affirms Finding Claimant Suffered a Mental Health Condition Arising Out of His Employment, Concludes That Claimant's Injuries are to be Determined Industrially

  Turner v. NCI Building Systems , No. 23-1003 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant was found to have suffered a mental health injury at work, but that injury was found not to be permanent.  The commissioner also concluded claimant had suffered injuries to his bilateral lower extremities, left shoulder and thoracic spine and awarded a 40% industrial disability. Claimant sought to have the report of a pain psychologist, provided two days after hearing, into evidence and this request was initially denied by the deputy, but allowed by the commissioner. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner, denying both the employer's appeal and claimant's cross-appeal. The Court notes first that challenging the agency's decision on the basis that the decision was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable was a "heavy lift." The Court considered the admission of the pain psychologist's decision and noted that the lateness of the report was due to the fact ...
Read more

Court of Appeals Affirms Sanction on Claimant for Service of Subpoena

  Tuttle v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. , No. 23-1941 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) In this unusual case, the deputy ordered claimant to reimburse her employer $3900 for allegedly harassing conduct in the service of a subpoena on a doctor.  Claimant alleges the sanction was a nullity because the agency lacked the authority to adjudicate subpoenas.  The Court disagrees and affirms the commissioner's sanction. The Court had earlier addressed this case and had remanded to the district court to determine whether all administrative remedies had been exhausted and to determine whether review of agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  The district court found administrative remedies adequate and indicated claimant must exhaust such remedies before proceeding. Because claimant had not appealed to the commissioner, there was still a remedy to be exhausted.   The case arose when claimant served a subpoena  on the employer's expert.  ADM subsequently soug...
Read more