Iowa Supreme Court Concludes Vascular Injuries are not Per Se Whole Body Injuries for Fund Purposes; Holds that a Sequella Injury to the Body As. Whole Does Not Automatically Preclude Fund Benefits

 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 support the statement that a vascular injury is per se an injury to the body as a whole. Instead, the agency must make a fact-based decision on a case by case basis to determine whether the injury results in the loss of use of a scheduled member.

The Court also finds that the agency erred in concluding that a second injury that results in a sequella injury to the body as a whole was not a qualifying injury under 85.64.  The Court concludes that under Gregory v. SIFthe agency must make a determination of industrial disability based on the combined effects of the first and second scheduled injuries. The commissioner must determine the industrial effects based solely on the combined  effects of the enumerated scheduled injuries, without consideration of the body as a whole injury. The case is remanded to the agency for further proceedings

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Holds that Injuries to Two Shoulders Are Not to be Considered Industrially Under 85.34(2)(v)

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...
Read more

Court of Appeals Rules Failure to Comply with Iowa Drug-Testing Statute Does Not Bar Admission of Drug Tests in Workers' Compensation Claim, Finds Claimant Failed to Rebut Presumption He Was Intoxicated

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...
Read more