Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Towns v. Silver Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation Center , No. 25-0310 (Iowa App. Dec. 17, 2025) In this somewhat complicated jurisdictional dispute, claimant initially filed an application for alternate medical care, which was denied.  A petition for judicial review resulted in the district court remanding the issue to the agency to redetermine the alternate medical care dispute based on more specific evidentiary findings.  The agency, through a deputy, issued a decision again denying alternate medical care.  Rather than filing an application for judicial review, claimant filed a document captioned "presentment of agency response to remand order for additional factual finding and request for order for hearing transcript and scheduling orders" with the district court. At hearing, defendants challenged jurisdiction, as claimant had not filed a petition for judicial review. Claimant argued the court had retained jurisdiction under its earlier remand order. The court ag...

  US Nursing Corp. v. Decormier , No. 25-0407 (Iowa App. Dec. 3, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury at work.  Under her contract at work, she was initially guaranteed 48 hours of work per week at $65 per hour, with $97.50 overtime.  She received a $10 per hour raise the week before she was injured. The deputy concluded her weekly rate was $1562.50 and denied penalty benefits.  On appeal, the commissioner agreed with the weekly rate but awarded a $5500 penalty.  Defendants filed a judicial review, which affirmed the decision of the commissioner The fighting issue with respect to the rate was whether section 85.36(6) or 85.36(9) was to be applied. The commissioner found that 85.36(6) appied, as claimant had worked at US Nursing for not only ten weeks in Sioux City but on an earlier assignment.  Defendants' argument that 85.36(9) applied because claimant had earned no wages or less than the usual wages customary in the industry was denied, as defendants' own wi...

  Koeller v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corp. , No. 25-0172 (Iowa App. Dec. 3, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury to his shoulder and was found to need a shoulder surgery , which included a distal clavicle excision .  Dr. Bollier , the physician who performed the surgery, provided a 6% permanent impairment rating based on loss of range of motion . No rating was provided for the distal clavicle excision, as Dr. Bollier did not believe this was related to the work injury. Dr. Taylor , claimant's IME physician , provided a 19% upper extremity impairment rating, which included a 10% rating for the distal clavicle excision.  In making this rating, Dr. Taylor indicated he did not use the 10% modifier from Table 16-18 of the AMA Guides because he believed that Table 16-27 was inadvertently listed as one of the tables to which the modifier should be applied.  Dr. Crites performed a record review and also found that the modifier did not apply and gave the full 10% impair...

LaGuerre v. JBS USA Holdings, Inc. , No. 24-2049 (Iowa App. Oct. 29, 2025) Claimant suffered a degloving injury which resulted in skin being grafted from claimant's right thigh to his right arm.  The employer's expert provided claimant a 9% upper extremity impairment despite the fact that the Guides treat a skin injury as an injury to the whole body.  Claimant's expert provided a 7% body as a whole impairment for a class I skin impairment.  The deputy found that claimant had sustained a scheduled injury, but provided a 7% whole body rating as the Guides instructed. The commissioner affirmed, as did the district court. On appeal, claimant argued that the legal question presented to the Court was whether the injury should be considered unscheduled because the Guides rates that impairment as a whole person impairment.  Claimant conceded that earlier precedent supported the deputy's decision to considered the injury a scheduled injury, but argued that the 2017 amendments...

  Culpepper v. CNH Industrial America LLC , No. 24-2040 (Iowa App. Oct. 29, 2025) The agency denied claimant's alleged back pain, rejecting the report of the treating physician and also finding claimant had not provided timely notice of the decision.  On judicial review, the district court reversed both findings and remanded the claim to the agency for further proceedings.  The Court of Appeals affirms the holdings of the district court. Claimant alleged that he suffered a neck injury while at work and alleged injury dates of 6/8/21, 9/3/21 and 10/29/21. Dr. Abernathey, the treating physician, provided statements concerning the injury on three occasions.  In the first two of those statements, which were referenced in the opinion of the deputy, Dr. Abernathey indicated that work activities did not "cause" the work injury.  In the third report, not discussed by the deputy, Dr. Abernathey opined "within a reasonable degree of medical certainty that [Culpepper's] wo...

  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...

  Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc. , No. 24-1991 (Iowa App. Oct. 1 2025) Claimant suffered an alleged work injury.  Prior to this injury, claimant had a lengthy history of injury, which had resulted in a 20 pound lifting restriction prior to the time he began working for the employer. In his position with the employer, claimant was required to lift between 25 and 50 pounds.  Claimant tripped while at work, fell to the cemet and hit his head.  He claimed injuries to his low back, leg and right ankle.  He was diagnosed with right sided sciatic radicular pain and lumbago with sciatica.  A CT scan desmonstrated severe degenerative disc disease.  Surgery was recommended by the surgeon chosen by the employer who related the surgery to claimant's work injury. A DME found that claimant's proposed back surgery was not related to the work injury, but to claimant's underlying conditions. The DME concluded claimant had back strain, with no permanent impai...

  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 at 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 calc...

  2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions December 2025 Okanovic v. Tyson Foods, Inc., No. 22011730.01 (App. Dec 22, 2025) - Claimant was found to have sustained a cumulative injury to his neck, bilateral shoulders and bilateral carpal tunnel.  Defendant's notice claim was rejected.  A running healing period was awarded.  Past medical expenses were awarded, as was claimant's IME (Walsh).  The commissioner affirms with additional analysis. The commissioner concurs with the deputy that Dr. Crites' findings were the most credible.  The commissioner finds the deputy's decision correctly placed the burden of proving his injury on claimant. the commissioner rejected the findings of Dr. Mooney that the injury did not arise out of claimant's work. The commissioner finds that claimant should have known that his injuries were present and work related by November 2021. Claimant specifically reported his condition and claimant was taken off his normal job in the No...