2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

 2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

October 2025

Flack v. Christensen Farms & Feedlots, Inc., Nos. 20009913.01, 21000111.01 (App. Oct. 31, 2025) - Claimant alleged a permanent aggravation of a preexisting back condition as a result of stipulated work injuries.  The deputy concluded claimant failed to carry her burden of demonstrating a permanent aggravation. The commissioner affirmes without additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Hogberg v. North American Beverage, No. 21013297.01 (App. Oct. 30, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate a mental injury and a permanent physical injury arising out of a stipulated work incident.  Claimant's IME was awarded (Christenson). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis.  6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Levendusky v. A to Z Drying, No. 23700547.01 (Ap.. Oct. 22, 2025) - This case is very similar to Bell, below, with claimant alleging testicular cancer and the deputy concluding claimant had not met his burden of proving the chemicals at A to Z caused that cancer (Humphrey). The commissioner affirms. 6 months from arbitartion to appeal decision.

Bell v. A to Z Drying, No. 23001758.01 (App. Oct. 22, 2025) - Claimant alleged he had contracted testicular cancer from exposure to pesticides at work.  The deputy concluded claimant had not met his burden of demonstrating his injury arose of employment. The deputy found that claimant's doctors had not accurately assessed the fact that substances to which claimant was exposed (Tebufenozide and Mimic) had not been found to be cancer-causing agents (Humphrey). The commissioner affirms, without additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Diehl v. Wells Fargo Bank, No. 23701089.01 (App. Oct. 22, 2025) - In this action in which claimant alleged he had contacted COVID at a conference in Florida, the deputy concluded claimant had not established that his injury arose out of and in the course of employment (Phillips). The commissioner agrees, without additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

September 2025

Wagner v. Intren, LLC, No. 22002178.01 (App. Sept. 29, 2025) - Claimant was found to have sustained a neck injury and was awarded a 75% industrial disability. Temporary and partial benefits were also awarded as were medical benefits and payment for claimant's IME. Defendants appeal, arguing that the injury was not related to work activities and the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Jones v. Papetti's of Iowa-Lenox, No. 22003900.01 (App. Sept. 12, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a 3% impairment to the right leg and the deputy concluded claimant had not established the injury extended into the body (Grell). On appeal, claimant argues that the impairment rating should be increased to 10% and that the injury extended into the low back.  Claimant also argues that alternate medical care for the back should be provided.  On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Doyle v. Alpla, Inc., No. 22001832.03 (App. Sept. 3, 2025) - The fighting issue in this case is whether claimant's injury should result in a 10% functional impairment of the body as a whole, as the deputy found, or a 30% impairment, as contended by claimant (Gerrish-Lampe). The commissioner concludes the deputy correctly found there was a 10% impairment and affirms the decision without further analysis. 3 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

August 2025

Heckman v. Fives, Inc. and SIF, No. 23005630.01 (App. Aug. 28, 2025) - Claimant suffered a right wrist injury in Wisconsin while working for the employer.  The deputy concluded the agency did not have subject matter jurisdiction of the case under section 85.71 and dismissed the action (Lunn). On appeal, claimant alleges that 85.71 is not a subject matter jurisdiction statute, but is limited to personal jurisdiction and that defendants waived the personal jurisdiction defense by not raising the issue.

On appeal, the commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy and concludes that 85.71 is a subject matter jurisdiction statute and thus cannot be waived by defendants. The commissioner reviews the initial implementation of 85.71 in 1973 and noted that in IBP v. Miller, 312 NW2d 530 (Iowa 1981) the Supreme Court had interpreted the statute as involving subject matter jurisdiction. The commissioner notes that later Supreme  Court decisions confirm this reading of the statute. In 2008, a statutory amendment  indicated that 85.71 should be construed to confer personal jurisdiction over an employee or employer to whom the section was applicable. In Niday v. Roehl Transport, Inc., 934 NW2d 29 (Iowa App. 2019), the Court of Appeals indicated that 85.71 read moer like a long-arm statute than a subject matter jurisdiction statute.

Although noting the Niday decision, the commissioner concludes that 85.71 remains a subject matter jurisdiction statute and thus the jurisdiction defense cannot be waived. The commissioner indicates that the requirements of 85.71 must be met for the agency to have jurisdiction for an extraterritorial injury and acknowledges that there are sufficient minimum contacts that confer personal jurisdiction.  This, according to the commissioenr, indicates the statute has substantive meaning. Because the statute is a subject matter jurisdiction statute, the defense cannot be waived, citing Klinge. v. Bentien, 725 NW2d 13 (Iowa 2006). Even if the statute were a personal jurisdction statute, the commissioner concludes that there was no waiver.

On the merits of the 85.71 argument, claimant avers that his home was a place of business for the employer because he performed incidental work duties at his home in Iowa. The commissioner notes that the employer did not require claimant to work from home and did not control his work from home.  He concludes that the connection between claimant's work at his Iowa residence and the employer was not sufficient to find claimant's residence was a place of business for the employer. Although claimant's contract of hire was made in Iowa, he did not "regularly work' in Iowa under 85.71(1)(b). Annett Holdings v. Allen, 738 NW2d 647 (Iowa App. 2007). Claimant's work from home consisted of "incidental travel-related planning and some annual video training," which the commissioner finds is not sufficient to find that claimant's work from home was a usual or customary location for his work. Because claimant did not establish jurisdiction in Iowa, the case was dismissed. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Fallon v. WT Sioux dba Mountain West Wendy's, No. 22011420.01 (App. Aug. 21, 2025) - Claimant sustained a non-work related injury in January of 2022 and later developed an ulcer at the surgical site.  She returned to work and had no further treatment for her left ankle injury until August 20, 2022.  On that date, the commissioner concluded claimant slipped in a cooler at work and dropped a box on her left ankle. Her wound reopened and she developed a wound infection. The deputy concluded claimant's injury was related to work and found a 23% impairment to the left lower extremity. Healing period and penalty benefits were awarded (Gerrish-Lampe).

On appeal, the commissioner finds that claimant's injury was related to work, relying on the opinions of Dr. Whitt, the treating physician over those of Dr. Broghammer. The commissoiner also affirms the finding that claimant suffered a 23% impairment, relying on the opinion of Dr. Crites. The commissioner reverses on the issue of healing period,, finding that claimant declined authorized medical care during this period and forfeited any claim to healing period for the time from Oct. 17 to Dec. 20, 2022. Healing period benefits from Feb. 2, 2023 to March 23, 2023 were also denied as claimant returned to work as a store manager and was capable of performing substantially similar employment prior to her termination on Feb. 2.  However, claimant subsequently had surgery and was entitled to healing period benefits from July 20, 2023 through Nov. 7, 2023.  The award of medical expenses after January 23, 2023 was affirmed, as defendants by this time were challenging causation. Medical benefits from Aug. 20, 2023 to Jan. 23, 2023 were denied as claimant declined care from defendants during that time. The penalty award on healing period benefits was reversed, with the commissioner concluding that since defendants were relying on the opinion of Dr. Broghammer, defendants had a reasonable basis for denying benefits. Payment for the IME was also denied, as claimant scheduled and received the report of her IME doctor prior to the issuance of Dr. Broghammer's opinion. 8 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Nolan v. City of Cedar Rapids, No. 22002338.01 (App. Aug. 21, 2025) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury resulting in a 15% industrial disability. Past medical expenses were awarded and costs of $3978.75 were awarded, primarily representing the costs for preparation of the written IME report, although IME costs were denied (Lunn). Penalty benefits were denied.  On appeal, the commissioner affirmed without additional analysis.  Five months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Demers v. SIF, No. 22000216.02 (App. Aug. 19, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had failed to prove a first injury for Fund purposes, finding that claimant's medical expert did not have an accurate medical history and that the doctor relied on the sixth edition of the Guides rather than the fifth (Pals).  Claimant appeals, arguing, among other things, that section 85.34(2)(x) is not applicable to Fund claims. The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy.  With respect to the argument that the limitations of 85.34(2)(x) did not apply to Fund claims, the commissioner relied on Harrell v. Denver Findley and Sons, 986 N.W.2d 872 (Iowa App. 2022), in which the Court held that 85.34(2)(x) was applicable to Fund claims.  Thus, in Fund cses the fifth ediction of the Guides governed, as in other cases.  Regardless of the applicability of 85.34(2)(x), the commissioner finds that claimant failed to present a convincing argument that the opinions of Dr. McCloy should be accepted concerning the alleged first injury to the leg. Dr. McCloy's report specifically indicates that claimant did not advise him of the first injury and indicated he could not proportion any residual impairment to his "distant" injury.  Dr. McCloy later provided an opinion indicating that claimant had osteoarthritis and provided a rating of impairment, despite not seeing claimant subsequently. Regardless of whether the fifth or sixth version of the Guides was used, the doctor's opinion was not given credibility. Five months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Spring v. Dayton Heating & Air Conditioning, No. 22000134.01 (App. Aug. 14, 2025) - The deputy found that claimant knew of his back injury on 2/26/21, the date claimant testified he knew the injury was work-related, but did not notify the employer until 7/26/21. Based on this finding and applying Tweeten, the deputy dismissed the action under 85.23 for failure of claimant to timely notify the employer (Christenson). On appeal, the commissioner appeals without further analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Jensen v. SIF, No. 23009726.01 (App. Aug. 11, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a first and second injury and found to have a 50% industrial disability (Gerrish-Lampe). The Fund argues on appeal that there was no first qualifying injruy. The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy without further analysis.  Five months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Lee v. John Deere Dubuque Works and SIF, No. 19006744.02 (App. Aug. 1, 2025) - In this action, the deputy concluded that claimant had suffered an injury to her right arm resulting in a 5% permanent impairment. The deputy also concluded claimant had failed to demonstrate a permanent mental impairment and rejected claimant's argument that she was permanently and totally disabled.  The deputy rejected claimant's argument that she suffered a first impairment for Fund purposes (Grell).  On appeal, the commissioner affirms the decision without additional analysis.  4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

July 2025

Wenzel v. Housby Mack, Inc., No. 23002987.01 (App. July 16, 2025) - The claim in this case is that claimant's distal clavicle excision should be found to result in a 10% scheduled member injury to the shoulder rather than a 3% injury (Pals). Claimant argues that the commissioner's determination in Jay v. Archer Skid Loader Service, No. 19003586.01 (App. August 2022) that a distal clavicle excision results in a 3% impairment should be overruled. The commissioner rejects claimant's invitation to overrule Jay.  The commissioner did not find the reports of other physicians from other cases to be convincing or binding on the agency's interpretation of the AMA Guides.  The commissioner also notes that Section 16.7 of the Guides instructs that the 10% upper extremity rating from the Guides is to be multiplied by a 25% multiplier, making the impairment a 2.5% impairment, which is rounded up to 3%. The commissioner reaffirms Jay and affirms the finding of the deputy. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Walbrun v. Nordstrom, Inc., No. 22008659.01 (App. July 8, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a right hip injury.  Although she returned to work, she was earning less than she was at the time of the injury.  The deputy concluded claimant had sustained a 30% industrial disability. The deputy also awarded healing period benefits (Humphrey).  Defendants appeal and assert that the injury should be scheduled, as claimant "voluntarily declined additional work hours." (the deputy had concluded that claimant worked less at the time of hearing than at the time of injury, even if the lessened work hours were self-imposed. This self-imposed lmiitation was not enough to overcome the words of the statutory text at 85.34(2)(x)). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional comment. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.  

June 2025

Strable v. SIF, No. 1666216.03 (Remand June 26, 2025) - In SIF v. Strable, 14 NW3d 742 (Iowa 2024), the Supreme Court held that the Fund was only liable for industrial disability associated with the combination of claimant's carpal tunnel syndrome and left lower extremity injury, without considering the industrial disability due to sequela injuries to the lower back and mental injury. The case presents to the commissioner on remand for a determination of the extent of the Fund's liability.

On remand, claimant argues she is permanently and totally disabled. Since she did not allege permanent and total disability against the Fund in her hearing report, the commissioner concludes this claim was waived. The commissioner finds that even if this claim was not waived, claimant did not demonstrate PTD under either traditional or odd lot analysis.  The commissioner concludes that the first injury to the bilateral extremities had a minimal impact on her industrial disability. Claimant had a 42% impairment to the left leg as a part of the second injury.  Claimant was found to have a 70% overall industrial disability, based on all of her injuries.  The commissioner concludes that 80% of the disability was due to her back, mental health and leg injuries, with 20% (70 weeks) due to the combined effect of the carpal tunnel and leg injuries.  20 weeks of PPD for claimant's PPD due to carpal tunnel is subtracted from the ID amount of 350 weeks.  The Fund is liable for the remaining 50 weeks (350 weeks - 20 weeks - 280 weeks). 7 months froom Supreme Court decision to remand decision.

Short v. Rosenmans, Inc., No. 21007731.04 (App. June 16, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a left hip sequela injury following an initial left ankle injury.  TPD benefits were awarded and claimant was found to have a 25% industrial disability. A $4000 penalty was also imposed for an unreasonable delay in paying PPD benefits (Lunn). The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Howard v. Prestage Foods of Iowa, LLC, No. 1665279.03 (App. June 11, 2025) - Claimant filed a review-reopening claim arguing that his shoulder injury had worsened following an earlier hearing.  The deputy concluded claimant had not demonstrated a change in physical condition following the hearing (Gerrish-Lampe).  The commissioner affirms, with additional analysis.  The commissioner first corrects the deputy's finding that claimant needed to demonstrate that the condition worsened in a way not contemplated in the earlier decision.  The commissioner noted that under Kohlhaas, this was an impermissible standard. The commissioner goes on to conclude claimant had not demonstrated his disability had increased following the earlier decision.  The decision finds that claimant's effort during physical testing was inconsistent, with passive ranges of motion being greater than active range of motion. The IME was rejected because it did not address the inconsistent results demonstrated in an FCE and in physical exams by two doctors. The commissioner also affirmed the finding that claimant was not entitled to temporary benefits because claimant had refused suitable work. Claimant had not reported for work under light duty restrictions for 15 months and was ultimately fired by the employer. The commissioner finds that the employer had offered suitable work and that claimant's failure to return to work for 15 months (and failure to return the employer's phone calls) was misconduct tantamount to a refusal to perform the suitable work. The commissioner considered claimant's failure to return the phone calls of the employer, combined with a 15 month refusal of suitable work a voluntary termination of employment, thereby forfeiting healing period benefits. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Flaherty v. Hy-Vee, Inc., No. 23010422.01 (App. June 6, 2025) - Claimant's surviving spouse filed a death case in which the deputy concluded that Mr. Flaherty's death did not arise out of and in the course of his employment (Christenson). The death had occurred when claimant died during the night wearing a CPAP machine that was not connected to the CPAP hose. Claimant was found to have a cardiac arrest. On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 3 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Sehic v. Titan Tire Corp., No. 21011919.01 (App. June 3, 2025) - In this case, the deputy concluded claimant was permanently and totally disabled from a crush injury sustained after he climbed into a machine to retrieve a screwdriver. Although claimant did not conduct a job search, the deputy concluded that a job search would have been futile (Cleereman).  On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis.  3 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

May 2025

Mitchell v. MJ Daly Construction, Inc., No. 21009283.02 (App. May 22, 2025) - The arbitration decision found that claimant had a left lower extremity and left hip injury and was awarded a 40% industrial disability.  The deputy concluded claimant had not demonstrated a compensable back injury nor a mental health injury (Christenson). Defendants argue the industrial disability should be treated functionally as an injury to the left lower extremity and also argue claimant was not a credible witness. Claimant cross-appeals the negative findings on the back and mental health allegations.  The commissioner concludes the aribtration decision should be affirmed, without additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Powell v. ABM Industries, Inc., No. 23004816.01 (App. May 20, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had not established a permanent disability for this admitted injury.  Payment for the IME was awarded (Rutherford). The commissioner affirms the decision without additional comment. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Hildman v. Trinity Health Corp., No, 19005487.02 (App. May 19, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a 45% industrial disability for a right hip and back injury (Phillips).  On appeal, defendants argue that the disability should be compensated as a functional impairment under 85.34(2)(v). The deputy concluded claimant had worked and earned less following the work injury. Defendants also contest the commencement date for benefits.  On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Terry v. SIF, No. 23002166.01 (App. May 13, 2025) - Claimant was found not to have sustained a first injury to the eyes and thus the claim against the Fund was denied (Pals). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 3 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Agency, No. 5042527 (App. May 12, 2025) - This case was originally filed for an April 30, 2012 injury.  The deputy and commissioner concluded claimant had not established a permanent disability.  The case ultimately was decided by the Supreme Court, which agreed that claimant did not have a permanent disability but was owed certain medical benefits. Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening petition asserting that her symptoms had continued and were permanent. The case again went to the Supreme Court, with the Court concluding that the review-reopening claim was not barred by res judicata.

On remand from the Court, the deputy (Christenson) found claimant had failed to demonstrate a change in her physical condition and again found there was no permanency. The commissioner affirms. The commissioner notes claimant had the same problems she had from her 2012 injury and that she testified that she has the same complaints now as she did at the 2014 hearing. The reports of Dr. Kuhnlein and Dr. Patra were rejected, with the commissioner finding that Dr. Patra's report did not explain how claimant's conditions had changed.  The commissioner finds that claimant asserts "the exact same symptoms" as she asserted at the original hearing. The commissioner also concludes that claimant was magnifying her symptoms at the time of the original hearing and there had been no new mental health diagnoses made following the original hearing. Payment for claimant's IME's is denied, as defendants did not obtain new impairment ratings following the original hearing. Dr. Patra's IME was denied because even though defendants obtained a report from Dr. Tranel, he was a neuropsychologist, not a doctor and thus the prerequisite that a physician made an initial assessment is not met. 7 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Paullin v. Midwest Viking, Inc., No. 22700525.02 (App. May 7, 2025) - Claimant was found to be permanently and totally disabled by the deputy.  A request for IME costs was denied because claimant's IME report was issued one day before defendants' DME (Lunn). The commissioner affirms the deputy's decision without additional comment. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

April 2025

Wells v. Concept Rehab, Inc., No. 21004021.01 (App. April 28, 2025) - Defendants notice claim was rejected by the deputy, who concluded claimant had suffered thoracic outlet syndrome as a result of a work injury and awarded 55% industrial disability (Phillips). Temporary partial disability benefits were also awarded.  The commissioner affirms the award without additional analysis.  7 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Saul v. BMC Aggregates, LC, No. 20014542.02 (App. April 23, 2025) - In the arbitration decision, the deputy found claimant had sustained a 31% permanent functional impairment to the body as whole.  Because claimant had returned to work earning the same or more than he had been making at the time of the injury, industirial consideration of the injury was denied (Humphrey).  Defendants appeal and the commissioner affirms with no further analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Ryan v. Zoetis, Inc., No. 23700224.01 (App. April 18, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had established a work-related injury to her left leg, resulting in a 2% impairment. Defendants' notice defense was rejected. Healing period benefits were awarded. Defendants were ordered to pay $500 in sanctions for violating a discovery order (Grell). The commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Denemark v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., Nos. 20001051.05, 22701085.01 (App. April 16, 2025) - Claimant sustained an injury to the left wrist and claimed sequela injuries including CRPS, mental health and a right wrist injury as a result of overuse of the wrist due to the left wrist injury.  The CRPS injury was rejected, but the deputy (Phillips) concluded claimant had sustained a permanent mental health injury as a result of the left wrist injury.  The sequela for the right wrist was rejected.  The commissioner concludes that the deputy was correct in rejecting the CRPS claim.  He also affirmed the deputy's finding that claimant suffered a permanent mental health injury, finding that Dr. Woods' causation opinion was the most credible and that claimant's condition had become chronic and was likely to plague him for the rest of his life. The industrial disability award, which the deputy had found was 50%, was accepted by the commissioner.  A small change is made to the commencement dates of permanency benefits, which the commissioner concluded should have begun on April 10, 2023 rather than July 1, 2023. A penalty of $11,500 was imposed on late payments of $24,370.32, which was a bit higher than the 35% imposed by the deputy.  the commissioner found defendants' delay in payment to be "egregious", particularly since no explanation was provided for the delay. 11 months from arbitrattion to appeal decision.

Springer v. Holy Family Catholic Schools, No. 1637077.03 (App. April 9, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had suffered a body as a whole injury after having undergone a reverse shoulder arthroplasty. A 60% industrial award was provided (Walsh). On appeal, the commissioner reverses the decision that the injury was industrial. The commissioner relied on an earlier decision, Ojeda v. Sivyer Steel Castings, LLC, No. 21005432.01, in which he had concluded that a shoulder replacement surgery was not to be treated industrially under the "functionality" test used by the Supreme Court in Chavez v. MS Technology, 972 NW2d 662 (Iowa 2022). In Ojeda, the commissioner had used the functionality test to deny industrial treatment, finding that although a shoulder replacement surgery affected structures outside the glenohumeral joint was not controlling and concluding that the purpose of the surgery was to improve the function of the shoulder.  In this case, the commissioner notes that Ojeda was not appealed and finds that decision controllling.  The commissioner acknowledges the seriousness of the injury and adopts the higher (59% vs. 32%) rating of impairment provided by claimant's IME physician. 11 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Happel v. LA Leasing, No. 21003497.02 (App. April 7, 2025) - In this action, defendants argued that claimant could not recover because he was intoxicated under 85.16(2)(b)(1).  Claimant had a positive test for marijuana following her injury. The deputy (Rutherford) concluded claimant had not overcome the presumption of intoxication and the commissioner affirmed that decision without additional comment. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Kreider v. WR Hospitality, LLC, No. 23700362.01 (App. April 4, 2025) - Claimant was found to have experienced a back injury arising out of his employment.  At the time of the hearing, claimant had not reached MMI and a running award of healing period benefits was granted. Penalty benefits were denied, as defendants had relied on the opinions of physicians in denying those benefits.  Payment for claimant's IME was denied because the physician (Bansal) did not provide evidence of the typical fee in the area for an IME (Gerrish-Lampe). Defendants appeal the healing period finding and claimant appeals the denial of penalty. On appeal, the commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy with no additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Cisneros v. Uncommon Ground of the Quad Citites, No. 22012542.01 (App. April 2, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a 25% industrial disability after suffering a back injury and a penalty of $500 was imposed on defendants (Grell). Defendants appeal and the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 3 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Poole v. Mercy Physician Associates, Inc., No. 23700419.01 (App. April 2, 2025) - Claimant was found not to have established a work injury (Grell). The commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

March 2025

Blasdell v. Linnhaven, Inc., No. 5044236 (Remand March 28, 2025) - The sole question presented in this remand decision is whether a surviving spouse is eligible for funeral expenses. The commissioner notes that section 85.28 provides that when death ensues from a workers' compensation injury, reasonable expenses for burial are payable.  Given this language and the fact that claimant has been found entitled to death benefits by the Supreme Court, funeral expenses are also awardable. Remand decision by Christenson.

Roth-Jasper v. Kwik Trip, Inc. & SIF, No. 1655940.03 (App. March 25, 2025) - Claimant was found to have demonstrated a bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome arising out of work.  Claims for ulnar neuropathy, neck and right shoulder were rejected. A 10% functional impairment to each arm was found both before and after the work injury, meaning that the work injury had caused no additional disability. The Fund claim was denied because although claimant demonstrated a first injury, she failed to demonstrate any further disability from the work injury (Grell). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional comment. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Graves v. American Healthcare Mgmt., No. 21005287.01 (App. March 18, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a 60% industrial disability. Payment of Dr. Patra’s IME was denied, but the report portion of the IME was reimbursed as a cost (Cleereman). On review, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Toe v. Kraft Heinz Food Co., No. 23700937.01 (App. March 10, 2025) - Defendants were granted summary judgment on claimant's claim, which alleged mental/mental, physical/mental and other issues. Defendants filed an answer, alleging that the commissioner lacked subject matter jurisdiction due to the fact the incidents arose out of allegations stemming from sexual harassment and were exclusively heard under Iowa Code section 216.6, the Iowa Civil Rights Act. Claimant noted that the ICRC concluded claimant was not entitled to the rights and remedies available under 216.6.  Claimant subsequently withdrew that complaint and argued that preemption no longer barred the agency from considering the claim. The deputy ultimately granted defendants' summary judgment motion based on the argument that the ICRC had exclusive jurisdiction of the claim.

The commisssioner finds that there is no issue of material fact, as claimant's claims were of sexual harassment. In determining whether summary judgment was appropriate under law, both parties relied on Ottumwa Housing Authority v. State Farm, 495 NW2d 723 (Iowa 1993). Claimant also cites to Baird v. Ottumwas Community School District, 551 NW2d 874 (Iowa 1996), a case in which the Court concluded that claimant's complaints in the workers' compensation claim were not necessarily grounded on sexual harassment, but of "abusive treatment by supervisors."  The commissioner notes that although claimant withdrew her civil rights complaint she still had the ability to sue based on the ICRC's right to sue letter. In addition, claimant's claims in the workers' compensation claim were grounded on sexual harassment. The commissioner finds that summary judgment was appropriate and dismissess the claim. 4 months from ruling on motion to reconsider to appeal decision.

Hipes v. Arconic, Inc., No. 20008264.02 (App. March 7, 2025) - The deputy found claimant had sustained a 4% injury to her right shoulder.  Certain medical expenses were not awarded because they had not been authorized and claimant failed to prove she was otherwise entitled to have those charges paid by defendants. On appeal, claimant argues for a higher award and payment of medical expenses.  The commissioner affirms, eschewing additional analysis. 6 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Mendoza v. Lennox Industries, Inc., No 22013028.01 (App. March 6, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had sustained a right knee injury.  The injury resulted in two surgeries and the deputy concluded both surgeries were related to the work injury.  A 2% lower extremity award was provided (Rutherford). On appeal, defendants argue the second surgery was not related to the work injury and challenges the award of healing period benefits following the surgery. The commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Houdek v. Kelly Building Systems, Inc., No. 5060845.01 (App. March 3, 2025) - Claimant alleged left shoulder, low back and right hip injuries and asserted permanent and total disability.  The deputy concluded claimant had sustained left shoulder and low back injuries, but concluded that the right hip injury was not related to the work accident.  A 50% industrial finding was made by the deputy, with PTD being rejected on both traditional and odd lot grounds (Lunn). The commissioner affirms that the right hip injury did not arise out of claimant's work.  The low back injury was found to be related to work, in large part because the defendants produced no expert opinion rebutting claimant's medical expert on this issue.  On the PTD issue, the commissioner concludes that under traditional industrial disability analysis, claimant had demonstrated the ability to retrain and the ability to earn wages in the competitive job market. On odd lot, claimant was found to have presented a prima facie case, unlike the deputy, but found that defendants had produced evidence that claimant could perform house inpections and insurance inspection and thus had rebutted the odd lot presumption.  PTD was thus defeated under both theories.

On industrial disability, the commissioner noted that claimant could not perform his prior work performing physical carpentry tasks as he had been performing with the employer.  Claimant was able to retrain and open a home inspection and insurance inspection business following the injury, although his wife had to assist in performance of his duties.  Because of these factors, the commissioner increased the industrial disability from 50 to 70%.  The commissioner also awarded penalty as defendants had delayed payment of benefits after they had paid 33% industrial disability, as they did not contemporaneously convey the basis for their denial of additional benefits above the 33% amount.  The only basis for the cessation of benefits was that claimant had been found to have permanent restrictions and could not offer work within those restrictions.  This did not justify cessation of benefits. an approximate 10% penalty ($8000) was awarded.  Dr. Manshadi's report was not included as a cost because the commissioner finds that file review time was not appropriate under DART v. Young. 8 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

February 2025

Hernandez de Escobar v. General Mills, Inc., No. 22010832.01 (App. Feb. 17, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a 14% body as whole injury as a result of bilateral scheduled injuries to the upper extremities.  The deputy imposed a penalty of $1500 for a delay in payment of benefits and ordered defendants to pay for claimant’s IME (Lunn). The commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Barnes v. XPO Logistics, Inc.,  No. 23010200.01 (App. Feb. 13, 2025) - The deputy concluded claimant had established a 15% industrial disability and also found that defendants had failed to demonstrate they were entitled to a credit against the award (Gerrish-Lampe). Defendants appeal and the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Van Veen v. Old Dominion Freight Line, No. 21001402.02 (App. Feb. 7, 2025) - Claimant was found to have sustained a 37% injury to the right lower extremity, with the deputy concluding claimant was credible. Temporary benefits and medical benefits were also awarded (Cleereman). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 7 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

January 2025

McKoy, aka Jacobson v. I.T.A. Group, No. 5065221.01 (Remand Jan. 30, 2025) - This is a remand of a district court decision in which reduced the amount paid to payment after satisfaction of a lien for indemnity and medical benefits from $116,66.67 to $97,660.46.  This rulingh was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and further review was denied by the Supreme Court. The commissioner affirms the district court's finding that the amount to be reimbursed to claimant was $97,660.46. Four months from remand to remand decision.

DeMaris v. Trinity Health Corp., No. 5067136.04 (App. Jan. 23, 2025) - Claimant was found to be credible, was awarded permanent total disability benefits as well as past due medical expenses and the costs for claimant's IME (Walsh). On appeal, the commissioner affirms without additional analysis other than to indicate that the deputy's credibility analysis was given considerable deference. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

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, LLC, No. 22004482.01 (App. Jan. 17, 2025) - Claimant suffered a shoulder injury and the deputy concluded this injury did not extend into the body as a whole. A 5% disability award to the shoulder was made by the deputy (Pals). Claimant appeals, arguing that his doctors should have been credited over those of defendants and the commissioner affirms without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Hodges v. St. Mary's Catholic Church and Diocese of Davenport, Nos. 22700635.01, 1597200.01 (App. Jan. 15, 2025) - Claimant was found to have filed his petition and review-reopening claim in an untimely manner and his claims were dismissed. Claimant argues that the review-reopening peition was filed in a timely manner because the employer paid wages in lieu of workers' compensation benefits and further argued that the petition was filed timely because the employer failed to file a notice of commencement of benefits on the claim (Lunn).

The commissioner finds that claimant had suffered an earlier injury for which benefits were paid, with the injury occurring in 2014.  Claimant's petition in this matter was premised on a 2013, which was not the subject of the 2014 injury, which was settled on an agreement for settlement. Claimant, a Roman Catholic priest, was placed on leave by the diocese in 2019, which claimant alleged was due to his 2013 and 2014 injuries. Regular wages were paid to claimant from February 1 through June 30, 2019, while claimant was on a leave of absence. Claimant did not request the leave of absence and did not request payment of workers' compensation benefits. Ultimately, claimant had an amputation of his left leg, which was the subject of the 2014 injury.  The petitions in the case were filed on June 27, 2022.  The commissioner concludes that subjectively, the Diocese did not intent ot pay claimant wages in lieu of compensation in 2019. 

The commissioner analyzes the issue using Moffitt v. Super Value Stores, Inc.., No. 1059425 (App. June 1998) as a starting  point.  Moffitt established a three part test for determining whether wages were paid in lieu of compensation: 1) the employer was aware of the work-related nature of the injury; 2) the worker was off work because of the injury; and 3) the employer paid regular salary or wages to the employee as a substitute for workers' compensation payments it was otherwise obligated to pay.  Here, the Diocese was aware of the work-related nature of claimant's injuries and was taken off work at least partially because of those injuries.  Regular compensation was paid for the injuries. The wages were paid before the review-reopening deadline established in the agreement for settlement, potentitally having inadvertent effects of misleading claimant into believing his statute of limiatations was extended beyond three years after the agreement for settlement was approved.  The commissioner notes that under Morgan v. John Deere Dubuque Works, Nos. 1042277, 5002161, 500162 (App. July 2004), the subjective intention of the employer was irrelevant in determining whether weekly workers' compensation benefits were paid and that payment of weekly benefits after the expiration of the statute reopens the statute of  limitations.

The commissioner finds that Moffitt is controlling with respect to the test to be used in determining whether wages were paid in lieu of compensation and that this is an objective test.  Although the Diocese did not subjectively believe they were paying wages in lieu of compensation, the wages were paid within three years of the agreement for settlement, which was approved on November 23, 2016. Since wages in lieu of compensation were paid less than three years after the settlement, the statute of limitations was extended.  Citing Beier Glass v. Brundige, 329 NW2d 280 (Iowa 1983). Although this might force employers into the untenable situation of having to decide to pay contractual wages/benefits to a worker that would extend the statute of limitations, this was the logic of earlier caselaw.  The 2014 injury was found to be filed in a timely manner. The commissioner finds that the statute of limitations expired on the 2013 claim, because this was not part of the agreement for settlement.

With respect to claimant's argument that the statute for the 2013 injury was tolled for the original claim (not the review-reopening claim), the commissioner finds no weekly benefits were paid on that claim initially, as all benefits in the agreeement for settlement related to the 2014 claim.  On this claim, once the statute expires, it cannot be revived, since no benefits were ever owed on the claim.

On the review-reopening question, the commissioner finds that claimant demonstrated that he suffered a deterioration of his physical condition for his left and right foot.  A claim for deterioration of his kidney condition was dismissed as not being supported by the evidence. Claimant was found to have a combined impairment of 31% to the body as a whole as a result of the left and right foot injuries.  The commissioner then determined that claimant's phantom pain was limited to the left leg injury following his amputation and that the case should be considered functionally.  Claimant was found entitled to 155 week of benefits, less 15 weeks previously paid as a part of the agreement for settlement.

Finally, the commissioner denies claimant's request for costs for his deposition transcript as this was duplicative of claimant's testimony at hearing and finds that the reasonable costs for an expert report was $2500 (the actual cost of the report was $6804.50). 8 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Davis v. Blain Supply Co., No. 21004216.01 (App. Jan. 8, 2025) - Claimant was found to have a shoulder injury and was awarded 60 weeks of benefits.  The deputy concluded claimant had not established that the work injury extended beyond the shoulder into the neck and thus industrial benefits were denied (Lunn). Claimant appeals and the commissioner affirms without additional analysis.  5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.