Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits to Worker Who Claimed He Contracted COVID at Work

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 for and was found positive for COVID.  In support of his position, he prevented the opinion of Dr. Kuhnlein who, in his report, referred the reader to his April 2022 letter to claimant's counsel concerning causation.  The April 2022 letter was not entered into evidence. Dr. Kuhnlein's report indicated that it was more probable than not that claimant was exposed to COVID through his work as there were multiple cases around the same time as claimant tested positive. The employer's expert noted that claimant did not indicate that he had been in contact with other workers who had COVID and had interacted with others who may have had COVID outside of work.  This expert found that it could not be said with medical certainty that claimant's COVID was related to work.  The commissioner noted that Dr. Kuhnlein's report was incomplete and did not identify any workplace exposure and denied benefits.  This conclusion was affirmed by the district court, which found that the decision was supported by substantial evidence.

The Court begins by noting that claimant had argued numerous reasons for appeal under Chapter 17A.19(10), but that the district court had only ruled on substantial evidence grounds.  Since claimant did not file a motion under Rule 1.904(2) to expand the court's ruling, the Court finds that claimant had abandoned any claims other than the substantial evidence claim.

The Court finds that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner.  Noting that deference is given to the agency, even if evidence is open to a fair difference of opinion, this does not mean there is not substantial evidence to support that decision.  Here, there was substantial evidence on the record to support the agency's decision.  The Court notes there was no evidence that the increase in COVID positives had reached claimant's department and also noted claimant had traveled out of state for medical care around the time of his positive test.  Finally, the Court notes that the fact that Dr. Kuhnlein's causation letter was not entered into evidence weakened claimant's claim.  The Court affirms the denial of benefits on substantial evidence grounds.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 suppo...
Read more

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 Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal as Moot

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...
Read more