Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Menard, Inc. v. Simmer , No. 14-2078 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed a finding that under the discovery rule, claimant had provided timely notice of his injury. As a part of his work with Menard's, claimant was required to carry goods from the store to customers cars.  These loads weighed up to 300 pounds.  In 2008 and 2009, claimant began to experience pain in his feet and up to his thighs while working.  By April of 2010, pain had spread to claimant's lower back, and claimant's physician referred him to the Minnesota Back Institute.  In May of 2010, claimant learned for the first time that he had scoliosis.  He was provided with an injection and therapy and returned to Menard's without restriction.  By early 2012, claimant's back problems had worsened and the doctor at Minnesota Back Institute indicated that his employment may have led to his worsening back condition.  He also performed surgery on March 7, 2012. Claima...

Menard, Inc. v. Fenton , No. 14-1924 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), is yet another substantial evidence case in which the Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the commissioner.  Claimant sustained a back injury while working at Menard and the deputy found that a 50% industrial disability award was appropriate.  The commissioner affirmed. On appeal, Menard argued that because the commissioner failed to compare the condition of claimant's low back before the with injury with his condition after having undergone surgery, this was an irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable application of law to fact.  The court rejected this argument, finding that the deputy commissioner summarized claimant's medical history and found no evidence there was any permanent impairment prior to claimant's injury at Menard.  The finding was supported by substantial evidence.  The deputy also found that claimant's position had changed and that his new job was not a permanent posit...

Thompson v. ATI Products, Inc., No. 14-1765 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), involved a situation where plaintiff was hired by an employment broker, Aventure Staffing and Professional Services, who placed him at ATI, where he was seriously injured on the first day of work.  Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim against Aventure and was provided with benefits.  He also filed suit against ATI for negligence.  ATI moved for summary judgment, claiming it was a "special employer" as a matter of law and arguing that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Iowa Code, section 85.20, barred the negligence action.  The district court found that no issue of material fact existed and granted summary judgment, finding that an implied contract of employment had been created that that Thompson's action was barred. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that in a "borrowed servant" situation such as this, the primary focus was whether the parties intended that an employment situati...

Claimant suffered an admitted injury to his left shoulder, but defendants denied claimant's alleged right shoulder injury. The deputy initially agreed with defendants, but on appeal, the commissioner's designee concluded that the right shoulder injury arose out of and in the course of employment.  In Taylor Industries, Inc. v. Lepley , No. 15-0243 (Iowa App. Aug. 5, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the agency. The court concludes that the district court correctly analyzed the substantial evidence issues involved in the case, and the case is affirmed with a summary decision pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26.

In Lampman v. Crystal, Inc., No. 14-1983 (Iowa App. 2015), claimant challenged a 5% industrial disability award as being too low. On substantial evidence grounds, the Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's award. Claimant injured her back lifting residents at a care center.  Claimant had a history of back problems, but had a specific incident on May 9, 2009.  She was fired by the nursing home two days after the incident.  The back injury was accepted and Dr. Miller ultimately indicated that claimant had an impairment of 1% to 2% of the lumbar back and released her without restrictions. Dr. Miller indicated that he did not believe claimant would get worse "as she is not working."  Dr. Jones performed an IME, provided a 5% impairment rating and imposed restrictions of lifting no more than 30 pounds occasionally and 15 pounds frequently.  He did not believe that claimant could perform her former duties as a CNA.  Claimant also saw Dr. McGuire, who agre...