2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

 2025 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

April 2025

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.