2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

 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  Claimant filed the appeal pro so, as claimant's attorney had previously withdrawn.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, 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.