Iowa Workers' Compensation

Collins v. Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority , No.23-1562 (Iowa App. Dec. 18, 2024) Claimant alleged that he had contracted COVID at work and sought benefits for this condition.  The commissioner concluded claimant did not prove that he had contracted COVID at work based in part on the fact that claimant did not present evidence from his IME physician indicating that his condition was medically connected to his work.  The district court affirmed and on appeal the Court of Appeals affirms the denial of benefits. At hearing, the evidence presented indicated that DART had maintained safety protocols to contain the spread of COVID.  Evidence was also presented that claimant had taken numerous steps outside of work to prevent him from contracting COVID.  Evidence was also presented that claimant's job required him to work in close contact with other employees.  In November of 2020, DART noticed an uptick in positive cases among employees and claimant tested ...

  H.J. Heinz Co. v. Tilton , No. 24-0236 (Iowa App. Dec. 18, 2024) In this action, which had previously been before the Court of Appeals twice, the Court affirms a decision finding that the date of discovery of the injury was April 15, 2013, that the filing of the action was timely and that claimant was permanently and totally disabled based on aggravations of her back and mental conditions. Claimant had a long history of treatment for back problems, beginning in 2000, approximately a year after she began working for the employer.  She continued to treat for the injury throughout the years and in 2010 her chiropractor indicated that her disc bulges and bone spurs were permanent and could cause her to miss work, but also finding she was not currently incpacitated.  Claimant received a great deal of treatment in 2010 and left the employer on April 13, 2013 on disability.  At hearing, medical testimony indicated that claimant's work had been a substantial contributing f...

Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Strable , No. 24-0056 (Iowa Dec. 13, 2024) In this Second Injury Fund case, the Court addresses the issue of whether a second injury for Fund purposes can be brought when that injury also encompasses non-scheduled injuries.  This particular issue had previously been decided by the Court in Delaney v. SIF , 6 NW3d 714, 717 (Iowa 2024) and the Court affirms its finding in Delaney  that such an injury can be the subject of a Fund claim.  Strable goes beyond Delaney in also considering the credits accorded the Fund in such a situation, finding that those credits include not only the scheduled value of all such claims, but the industrial value of those claims. In this case, claimant had a first injury in the form of injuries to the arm (carpal tunnel). She subsequently suffered an ankle injury, which included unscheduled sequela injuries (back and mental health injuries).  She settled the ankle injury by way of a commutation and settled the u...

  Hermanstorfer v. Lennox Industries, Inc. , No. 24-0652 (Iowa App. Dec. 4, 2024) In this case involving only the issue of rate, the commissioner concluded that claimant's time off for a personal health condition was to be included in the claimant's rate.  The deputy had concluded that claimant's frequent taking of FMLA leave established a "pattern" of reduced hours.  Claimant argued that these weeks should have been excluded but the deputy and commissioner rejected this argument.  The district court reversed, finding that the inclusion of weeks in which claimant took FMLA leave was "illogical, irrational and wholly unjustified." The Court of Appeals notes that weekly earnings are defined by 85.36 as those the employee would have worked had he or she "worked the customary hours for a full time period." The Court noted that the statute was to be interpreted liberally in favor of the employee. Under a plain reading of 85.36, according to the Cour...

H.D. Supply Management v. Smith , No. 23-1656 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2024) In this interlocutory appeal, the parties requested the Court to decide whether a stay of a workers' compensation award was appropriate.  Claimant had filed a request for judgment under 86.42 following the commissioner's finding of permanent total disability.  Defendants moved to stay enforcement, despite the fact they had failed to post a bond in a timely manner.  Ultimately, the district court stayed the order, finding that claimant would  not be prejudiced despite the late posting of the bond. While the appeal was pending, the underlying claim was reversed and remanded to the commissioner (the underlying issue in the case was whether a combined arm and shoulder injury should be treated industrially, which the Supreme Court answered in the negative in Bridgestone Americas v. Anderson , 4 N.W.3d 676 (Iowa 2024). The parties argued that the case was not moot, given the fact that some benefits wo...

XPO Logistics v. Ivester , No. 23-1357 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2024) Claimant was found to have sustained permanent total disability from a back injury affecting both his left and right side.  Although defendants admitted that claimant had sustained an injury to his left back, they argued that the symptoms from the left-sided back injury had largely abated and claimant was not entitled to PTD based only on his symptoms to the left back.  Defendants argued that the symptoms to the left back, which arose following surgery to his left back, were not related to his work.  In finding permanent total disability, the deputy and commissioner relied on the unrefuted opinions of two experts, Dr. Mathew and Dr. Segal, that the "ongoing low back and lower extremity symptoms, including his right-side symptoms, are related to the work injury of June 8, 2016." On appeal, the employer argued that since the surgery was to the left side, symptoms on the right side with no immediate onset could...

  Delaney v. Second Injury Fund , No. 23-0182 ((Iowa May 10, 2024) Claimant suffered an injury to her left leg and 33 years later suffered an injury to her right leg. Following surgery on the right leg, claimant developed lymphedema. She filed for benefits against the Fund and the commissioner concluded that because lymphedema was an unscheduled injury, claimant was not entitled to benefits against the Fund under 85.64. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that even if a second injury resulted in a sequella body as a whole injury, claimant was still entitled to consideration of the second injury under 85.64. The Supreme Court first concludes that the agency erred in concluding that a per se rule for vascular injuries that concluded that such injuries precluded an action against the Fund was erroneous.The Court rejects the reliance of the agency on Blacksmith v. All-American , finding that Blacksmith  did not suppo...

Nordstrom v. Carmer , No. 23-1423 (Iowa App. May 8, 2024) Claimant suffered an accepted injury to her right shoulder in August of 2018. She subsequently developed pain in her left shoulder due to overcompensating for her right shoulder injury with her other arm. Claimant's IME physician opined that the left shoulder injury was due to overcompensation due to the right shoulder injury while defendants' doctor indicated that the left shoulder injury was due to rheumatoid arthritis and was not work-related.  The commissioner concluded that both shoulder injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and found that the injuries should be treated as unscheduled under 85.34(2)(v).  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissoiner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first concludes that the report of Dr. Segal, claimant's IME doctor, was supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that the decision concerning medical causation was essentially within the do...

Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Anderson , No. 22-1328 (Iowa March 29, 2024) In this case of first impression,  claimant suffered simultaneous injuries to his arm and shoulder arising out of his work.  The commissioner concluded that because such simultaneous injuries were not encompassed under the listing of scheduled member injuries in 85.34(2)(a)-(u), it should be considered under the catch-all provisions of 85.34(2)(v), which requires injuries not encompassed under 85.34(2)(a)-(u) to be considered industrially under the Code.  The commissioner concluded that claimant had suffered a 50% industrial disability. This finding was affirmed by the district court. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three issues.  First, there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that claimant's injuries arose out of employment. Second, the injuries should be compensated as unscheduled injuries.  Third, the 50% award was excessive.  The Court conclu...

Davis v. Gordon Food Service, Inc. , No. 22-1944 (Iowa App. Feb. 21, 2024) Claimant suffered an injury at work.  Pursuant to the employer's drug policy, claimant took a drug test following the injury, which was positive for methamphetamines.  The test was not conducted in accordance with 730.5, which requires that two samples be taken to allow the person being tested to have the samples independently tested.  At hearing, the deputy concluded that the violation of 730.5 did not make the admission of the drug test inadmissible for purposes of the workers' compensation act.  The deputy also concluded that claimant did not rebut the presumption that he was intoxicated under 85.16 of the Code, despite the fact that claimant testified that he had not taken drugs for four days before the injury and there was no testimony that claimant was acting in an intoxicated manner and no evidence that intoxication led to the injury.  The commissioner affirmed, as did the district...

Loew v. Menard, Inc. , No. 22-1894 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a low back injury resulting in a 20% functional impairment and a resulting 30% award of industrial disability.  Claimant suffered a second work-related back injury, which was compensated functionally as he continued to work for the employer earning wages in excess of those at the time of the injury.  As a result of the second award, claimant was found to have a 28% functional disability.  The commissioner concluded that the employer was not required to pay additional benefits for the second injury, as the employer received a credit for the 30% award that had previously been paid, which was in excess of the 28% functional award.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.  The Supreme Court accepted review of the claim. The Court first notes that Iowa's worker's is statutorily based and that the statute is "liberally construe[d] . . .in claimant's favor to effectuate the statut...

P.M. Lattner Manufacturing Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a right shoulder injury in 2009, which ultimately resulted in a commutation settlement for 29.6% of the body as a whole.  Claimant subsequently suffered another injury to the right shoulder in 2018, following changes to the Code which made shoulder injuries unscheduled.  At hearing, claimant was awarded a 19% functional impairment for the injury to his right shoulder.  The employer argued that the entire award should be credited given that the earlier commutation resulted in a greater award than the second right shoulder injury.  The commissioner rejected this argument, but noted that defendants could arguably be entitled to a credit for the functional portion of the injury.  In this case, however, defendants failed to prove the amount of the credit and thus no credit was awarded. A secondary issue was also presented regarding payment of the IME.  The commissioner awa...

Mid American Construction LLC v. Sandlin , No. 22-0471 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) In this action, the sole question presented to the Court was whether the cost of an "examination" conducted as a part of an independent medical examination was reimbursable to claimant or whether the amount to be paid was limited to the the component cost of the impairment rating under section 85.39 of the Code.  The commissioner had included the costs of the examination and the district court agreed.  On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court limited the amount to the cost involved in providing the impairment rating and awarded only $500 of the $2200 amount charged by the IME physician. On further review, the Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and holds that the cost of the examination was payable by the employer.  The Court begins by noting that section 85.39(1) and (2) both require an employee to submit to examinations as a part of the workers' compensation claims....

Kraft Heinz Co. v. Bynum , No. 23-0045 (Iowa App. Feb. 7, 2024) Claimant was initially employed with Kraft through a temporary employment agency.  Claimant was hired by Kraft in January of 2019.  In early February, claimant was diagnosed with a hernia and he notified the employer of his problems and need for surgery.  Following his return to work, he continued to have pain, was taken off work and received short term disability benefits.  Claimant wrote a letter to the employer in June of 2019 indicating that he had told numerous people at work about his injury and felt he should be receving workers' compensation benefits.  The commissioner concluded that the employer failed to prove that it did not receive timely notice as "it had not rebutted credible testimony that Bynum had informed multiple supervisors of the injury within the ninety-day period."  The district court concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's decision. On appeal, th...

Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats , No 23-0393 (Iowa App Feb. 7, 2024)  Claimant retired on October 31, 2018 and notified his employer of an alleged cumulative back injury on October 22, 2019.  The commissioner concluded that the claim was barred by section 85.23, as claimant had not notified the employer of his injury in a timely manner.  Claimant's discovery rule argument was rejected,  The district court also rejected the argument. At the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the the commissioner erred by not making separate determinations as to when claimant knew the nature, seriousness and compensable character of his injury.  The Court notes this argument, but indicates that following the appeal, the Supreme Court had issued its decision in Tweeten v. Tweeten , 2023 WL 8853036 (Iowa 2023).  The Court concluded that under Tweeten , the issue of whether the application of the discovery rule applied to only one or all three of the elements of the discovery rul...

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions December 2024 Mulder v. Schuiteman , No. 1641929.01 (App. Dec. 13, 2024) - The deputy concluded claimant had sustained an 80% industrial disability and made findings crediting the testimony of claimant and his sister (Christenson). Defendants appeal the decision, arguing that the deputy erred in not specifically addressing certain alleged discrepancies in the record and alleging claimant was not credible. In affirming the decision, the commissioner initially notes that the deputy had the opportunity to view claimant's testimony and that of his sister, something which the commissioner did not have.  Considerable deference was given to the credibility determinations of the deputy for that reason. Defendants also pointed to various pieces of evidence that were not mentioned by the deputy in the decision.  The commissioner finds that the deputy does not need to discuss every relevant piece of evidence and find that this bit of evi...