Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Turner v. NCI Building Systems , No. 23-1003 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant was found to have suffered a mental health injury at work, but that injury was found not to be permanent.  The commissioner also concluded claimant had suffered injuries to his bilateral lower extremities, left shoulder and thoracic spine and awarded a 40% industrial disability. Claimant sought to have the report of a pain psychologist, provided two days after hearing, into evidence and this request was initially denied by the deputy, but allowed by the commissioner. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner, denying both the employer's appeal and claimant's cross-appeal. The Court notes first that challenging the agency's decision on the basis that the decision was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable was a "heavy lift." The Court considered the admission of the pain psychologist's decision and noted that the lateness of the report was due to the fact ...

  Tuttle v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. , No. 23-1941 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) In this unusual case, the deputy ordered claimant to reimburse her employer $3900 for allegedly harassing conduct in the service of a subpoena on a doctor.  Claimant alleges the sanction was a nullity because the agency lacked the authority to adjudicate subpoenas.  The Court disagrees and affirms the commissioner's sanction. The Court had earlier addressed this case and had remanded to the district court to determine whether all administrative remedies had been exhausted and to determine whether review of agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  The district court found administrative remedies adequate and indicated claimant must exhaust such remedies before proceeding. Because claimant had not appealed to the commissioner, there was still a remedy to be exhausted.   The case arose when claimant served a subpoena  on the employer's expert.  ADM subsequently soug...

  Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan , No. 23-1402 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury and work and continued to work for the employer for 11 months with some work restrictions.  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 making at the time of his job with Den Hartog.  The commissioner concluded that claimant's back injury should be compensated industrially under the provisions of 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner concluded that the functional impairment provision of the statute did not apply to claimant because he voluntarily separated from the employer and had not been terminated by the employer. The district court affirmed, finding that 85.34(2)(v)'s bifurcated process would be imposed only when the employer returned to work and was then terminated by the employer. On review, the Court concludes that 85.34(2)(v) recognizes two categories for benefit cal...

  2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions January 2025 Hill v. Whirlpool Corporation , Nos. 22700950.01, 22700951.01 (App. Jan. 17, 2025) - Claimant was denied permanency benefits as the deputy concluded claimant had not demonstrated a permanent impairment as a result of workplace exposure to liquid bleach (Lunn).  Claimant filed the appeal pro so, as claimant's attorney had previously withdrawn.  The commissioner affirms.  He finds that claimant had a history of respiratory and cardiovascular problems prior to the October 2020 work injury.  In addition, claimant had not reported difficulty breathing or shortness of breath between December of 2020 and May of 2022. Although there may have been a temporary impairment, no permanency was demonstrated. Although claimant had a mild neurocognitive disorder, the evidence did not demonstrate this was due to workplace exposure. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Lopez Hernandez v. Innovairre International, ...