Court of Appeals Affirms Decision Apportioning Benefits

In Ditsworth v. Icon Ag, No. 19-0703 (Iowa App. March 18, 2020), the commissioner affirmed an a total award of 50% based on the apportionment of two injuries with the same employer.  The first injury was settled by the parties and the second injury resulted in a total award of 50%, with an additional 30% awarded for the second injury.

Claimant appealed the commissioner’s decision, apparently arguing that since different insurers were involved, apportionment should not have occurred and claimant should have received 50% for the second injury.  The court agreed with the commissioner and noted that 85.34(7)(b).  Citing Roberts Dairy v. Billick, the court found the language of 85.34(7)(b) required apportionment. The decision of the commissioner was affirmed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Addresses Tinnitus and Statute of Limitations Issues

In PMX Industries v. Reich , No. 12-1824 (Iowa App. May 30, 2013), the court addressed issues of tinnitus and hearing loss in a workers' compensation setting, and addressed the issue of when notice had to be provided for a tinnitus claim.  Claimant was a long time worker for PMX, which was an admittedly noisy facility.  Claimant testified that although he wore hearing protection, he would often have to remove the hearing protection in order to hear people talking within the plant. In 2008 he was diagnosed with a hearing loss and resigned from his employment. The doctor who addressed the hearing loss issues for the employer, Dr. Taylor, found that claimant had a 2.2% bilateral hearing loss.  Claimant was referred to Dr. Marlan Hansen at the University of Iowa, who agreed that claimant had noise-induced hearing loss.  Claimant was then referred to Dr. Plakke, who noted hearing loss, but indicated that because of the continued loss of hearing after he left PMX, this w...
Read more

Court of Appeals Rejects Gross Negligence Claim

In another example of how difficult it is to successfully pursue a gross negligence claim, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of such a claim in Whitacre v. Brown , No. 1-509 (Iowa App. Oct. 19, 2011).  Plaintiff had been taught to clean the rollers on a machine in a certain manner, and this same technique for cleaning the machine had been used in the past without incident.  A Manual that was in proximity to the machine advised workers not to put their hands by the revolving rolls and not to wipe the rollers while they were turning.  The Manual's instructions were contrary to the method in which plaintiff was instructed, in which the rollers were cleaned while they were turning.  Mr. Whitacre was injured using the cleaning procedures he had been taught. Whitacre filed against defendants based on gross negligence, and his claim was dismissed on summary judgment by the district court because he had not demonstrated any of the elements of gross negligence....
Read more

Court of Appeals Affirms 3% PPD award, Failure to Award Penalty Benefits and Denial of Request for Costs

In Baccam v. ACH Food Companies, aka Tone's, No.18-1002 (Iowa App. March 6,  2019), the court addressed issues concerning the extent of claimant's leg impairment,  the extent of penalties and costs of the action.  Claimant was found to have a 2% leg impairment by defendants' doctor, 3% from his IME doctor, but argued that based on his loss of use, his award should have been higher than the 3% awarded by the commissioner.   The Court of Appeals affirmed, based on substantial evidence.  On the penalty claim, claimant argued his penalty benefits on permanency should have been greater.  a 5% penalty award was made,  based on a failure to pay permanency benefits when due.  The court concluded that there was no error in this finding.  On the costs issue, the court found that claimant was not entitled to payment for the costs of the appeal transcript. On the remainder of costs, the court found that the commissioner had not abused its discreti...
Read more