Iowa Workers' Compensation

In KAS Investment v. Buehlmann , No. 19-1085 (Iowa App. May 13, 2020), the court addressed a decision of the commissioner finding claimant eligible for benefits and awarding penalty.  The court finds that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner and that the commissioner’s actions were not an abuse of discretion.  Because the issues in the case involved the application of well-settled law, the case was affirmed by memorandum opinion under Iowa Court Rule 21.26.

In Logan v. The Bon Ton Stores, Inc. , No. 19-0608 (Iowa May 1, 2020), the court addressed a recurring question of service of judicial review petitions in workers' compensation actions.  The statute, 17A.19(2), requires personal service or service by mail within ten days.  Earlier cases, including Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , 928 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa 2019) had found that substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. In Ortiz, service had been by email and this was found to substantially comply with the statute.  The court describes  Logan  as a codicil to Ortiz . Claimant appeared pro so in this case, filed her petition for judicial review and sent the petition to opposing counsel by fax.  The court noted that defendants were not prejudiced by receipt by fax, since this was received by counsel well within the ten day limit.  Although the court noted that the golden age of faxes was well in the past (and thus unl...

As presented by the Supreme Court in Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc. , No. 18-1051 (Iowa May 1,  2020), the issue before the court was "whether a workers' compensation claimant who receives disability benefits for a traumatic injury can later recover disability benefits on a separate disability claim if the cumulative injury is based solely on aggravation of the earlier traumatic injury."  The court unanimously concluded that Ms. Gumm could not recover. Claimant initially suffered a fracture of her right ankle, for which she was paid WC benefits following surgery.  The last payment of benefits for the injury was on May 10, 2010.  Claimant continued to suffer from right ankle pain and in January of 2012 returned to the treating physician.  The physician believed that this could have been from a coincidence or from compensating for her right ankle pain. On April 11, 2012, she underwent another surgery, returning to full-duty work on May 3.  Cla...