Iowa Workers' Compensation

Masterbrand Cabinets v. Simons , No. 20-1635 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021)  The commissioner concluded that claimant had suffered a ruptured right quadriceps tendon, concluded that this injury extended into the body, specifically the hip and awarded industrial disability benefits as well as penalty.  Defendants appealed and the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that defendants' argument that claimant's injury was a scheduled injury was a "miserly reading of the statute."  The court noted that if an injury to a scheduled member has effects extending beyond that member, resulting in permanent impairment to the body as a whole, this may be the basis of industrial disability.  The court concludes that the commissioner did not err in interpreting the law in finding that the injury extending into the body as a whole. The court also concludes that the commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evide...

Blake v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 20-1382 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021) Claimant suffered an injury at work and alleged that she had suffered a first injury in the form of eye problems.  Claimant suffered from Graves disease, and the question in the case was whether she had suffered a qualifying first injury.  The commissioner found that claimant's eye problems were not a qualifying first injury   and dismissed the claim against the Fund.  Claimant appeals. Claimant argued that under Gregory , claimant's eye problems were a permanent disability and thus a qualifying injury.  The court found that Gregory   was inapplicable because in that case an earlier hand injury combined with injuries to other unenumerated body parts was before the court whereas in Blake , the condition was an unenumerated condition leading to problems with a scheduled member, in this case, the eye.   The court noted that in Nelson , the court had noted that an injury...

  Reinsbach v. Great Lakes Cooperative , No. 20-1097 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021) In this action to enforce the decision of the commissioner under section 86.42, claimant argued that the district court went beyond construing the ruling of the commissioner and improperly modified the ruling. The case had previously reach the Court of Appeals with a decision issued on July 9, 2015.  That case found that claimant's condition was related to the work injury, but reversed with respect to the costs of Dr. Kuhnlein's costs.  The agency subsequently order defendants to provide all future care and treatment recommended by Dr. Strothman.  Claimant sought to enforce that order under 86.42.  Defendants argued that the district court should construe the commissioner's order to provide claimant with all causally related, reasonable and necessary care for the work condition.  The district court ordered care with Dr. Strothman and added that defendants should authorize and pa...

Kern v. Fenchel, Doster & Buck, P.L.C , No. 20-1206 (Iowa App. Sept. 1, 2021) Claimant suffered an injury while working, but when sent for an examination with a doctor engaged by the employer, that doctor found that the injury was not causally related to work.  Claimant subsequently had an IME with Dr. Bansal, who found causation and permanent impairment.  The commissioner found that claimant had suffered a permanent impairment as a result of an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.  Claimant's request for penalty benefits was denied.  A request for reimbursement of the IME was also denied, with the commissioner concluding that a finding of no causal connection was not tantamount to a finding of no impairment.  Citing DART v. Young , the commissioner denied reimbursement under 85.39.  Costs under rule 4.33 were also denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the case was governed by DART v. Young , noting that employers were "n...