Court of Appeals Affirms Award of Industrial Disability and Penalty Benefits

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 evidence.  Specifically, the court concluded that the reports of three doctors identified an impairment of hip resulting from his torn quadriceps tendon.  Accordingly, the decision of the commissioner was affirmed.

Although the court notes in its introduction to the case indicated that defendants had appeal the award of penalty benefits, there is no specific discussion of this aspect of the case in the court's decision.

 

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

Supreme Court Concludes That Once a Worker Returns to Work at the Same or Greater Pay, and Injury is to be Considered Functionally Under 85.34(2)(v)

  Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan , No. 23-1402 (Iowa Oct. 3, 2025) In this case interpreting 85.34(2)(v) of the Act, the Supreme Court concludes that an employee who returns to work at the same or greater wages following an otherwise industrial work injury is to have that injury considered functionally under 85.34(2)(v)(3). The decision reverses an earlier 2-1 decision of the Court of Appeals that had concluded the statute was unclear and was to be interpreted liberally. The court had concluded claimant's injury was to be determined industrially. Claimant suffered an injury at work and continued to work for the employer for 11 months with some work restrictions.  After returning to work, he was paid wages that equaled or exceeded the wages he had previously received. He testified that his pain caused him to miss "a fair bit of work." He left the job after 11 months to take a different job and move closer to his family.  He subsequently found work, making more than he was...
Read more