2026 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

 January 2026

Valtierra v. SIF, No. 23012300.01 (App. Jan. 29, 2026) - In this Fund case, claimant was denied benefits for failure to demonstrate a first injury to the left eye (Christenson). Claimant argues that he presented unrebutted evidence of a 3% injury to the left eye. The commissioner affirms.  The commissioner concludes that in order to demonstrate a first injury to the eye, there must be a showing of a permanent loss of use of the eye. Claimant had a fracture or the orbital wall surrounding the eye, which the commissioner finds had "healed without incident." Claimant's ophthalmologist expressed concerns that claimant's ocular muscles could be entrapped, but noted full range of motion of the eye and good vision.  No restrictions were imposed as a result of the eye injury. Dr. Bansal noted that claimant continued to have headaches and visual disturbances, particularly when looking to the left.  He also noted measurable functional deficits in extraocular movements, photophobia and assigned a 3% impairment rating.  No work restrictions were imposed.  Based on the fact that claimant's treating ophthalmologists had not noted any functional deficits, the commissioner found that the credibility of Dr. Bansal was damaged.  Dr. Chen agreed with the 3% impairment, but concluded claimant's impairments were not related to work. The commissioner also faulted Dr. Bansal for not analyzing the effects of claimant's cataracts on his vision. He agreed with Dr. Chen that claimant's use of prednisone was the cause of claimant's headaches.  Ultimately, given the opinions of the treating physicians, the commissioner concluded there was no permanent impairment ot the eye, no first injury and no action against the Fund. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Coffman v. Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, No. 24008201.01 (App. Jan. 28, 2026) - Claimant was found to have sustained a cumulative work injury that manifested by 1/24/24, but benefits were denied because he did not give notice of the injury until 5/7/24, the date the petition was filed (Gerrish-Lampe). Claimant argues that he reported a fall on ice on 1/19/24.  Claimant contends that defendants had actual notice of the injury and that the discovery rule applied since claimant did not know his injury was work-related until he received a report from a physician demonstrating work-relatedness.  Specifically, claimant urges that "it is an overstatement to infer that the Tweeten opinion nullifies the application of the discovery rule here." Claimant argues that claimant cannot provide notice of an injury until it is manifested and has been discovered by the claimant.

The commissioner affirms on the notice issue.  The commissioner finds that claimant's injury manifested on 1/23/24, when claimant reported to his provider that his heavy work may have caused his symptoms. The commissioner finds claimant did not provide notice of the injury until the filing of the petiion, but does not really address claimant's argument that he provided notice on 1/19/24, when he fell on ice.

The commissioner also rejects claimant's discovery rule argument, finding that 85.23 provides that notice must be provided within 90 days of manifestation and that the discovery of the injury by claimant is not a part of the notice standard contained in 85.23. Citing the COA decision in Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 4 NW 3d 721 (Iowa App. 2024), the commissioner finds that the discovery rule does not apply under 85.23 of the Code. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Alvarez v. The Hon Company, LLC, No. 23002093.03 (App. Jan. 22, 2026) - The deputy found that claimant had failed to demonstrate that his right shoulder injury was related to his work activities and failed to provie that he had suffered permanent disability (Christenson). On appeal, claimant argues that the deputy wrongly accepted the claims of defendants' doctors over those of his doctors and also argues that his injury was cumulative, not traumatic, in nature.  

On appeal, the commissioner concludes that the deputy's finding on the credibility of defendants' doctors was correct.  Although he finds that the claimant's arguments on traumatic versus cumulative injury do not establish that the deputy's decision was erroneous, he concludes that even if the injury was cumulative, defendants' doctors had opined that even if claimant had an underlying condition, his work did not aggravate the condition. The deputy's decision was affirmed in full.  5 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Laird v. Trinity Health Corp., No. 20011683.01 (App. Jan. 14, 2026) - In this Covid case, the deputy concluded that claimant's Covid had arisen out of and in the course of her employmenet and had led to a number of conditions, utlimately including PTSD.  A 55% industrial award was provided by the deputy.  Penalty benefits were awarded for failure to pay permanency benefits as of the time claimant reached MMI (Humphrey). On appeal, defendant challenges the causal connection of claimant's sleep apnea and related medical bills. Defendant also argues that claimant's conditions should be treated functionally under 85.34(2)(v).  Defendants also contend that MMI is not reached until MMI is reached for all conditions and that penalty was improper.

With respect to claimant's development of atrial fibrillation, leg edema and left carpal tunnel syndrome, the interim commissioner finds that the deputy's analysis was correct.  The commissioner finds that claimant's underlying symptoms were aggravated by Covid and concludes Dr. Kuhnlein's opinion on this score was most convincing. With respect to carpal tunnel, claimant's treatment for Covid required her to be sedated and practically motionless for extended periods of time.  The commmissioner affirmed that this led to the development of carpal tunnel.

Defendant alleged that medical costs on certain items should not have been awarded.  The commissioner points out, however, that defendant had stipulated that the medical treatment was reasonable and necessary and that the costs were appropriate.  Having made this stipulation, defendant could not prevail on this point.

The 85.34(2)(v) issue was decided in favor of defendant.  Claimant voluntarily resigned her employment with defendant and returned to other work at the same or greater earnings.  Under Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan, 26 NW2d 377 (Iowa 2025), decided after the arbitration decision, if a claimant is offered work or returns to work at the same or greater wages, the injury is to be determined functionally.  Claimant was offered work at the same wages and hours and thus her injury was to be treated functionally. Claimant received a 33% whole person award based on the ratings provided by Dr. Kuhnlein.

The deputy is also reversed on the issue of commencement of benefits.  The commissioner concludes that permanency did not occur until all of claimant's condition were at maximum medical improvement. Because claimant did not reach MMI for her PTSD until Nov. 8, 2023, permanency benefits commenced on Nov. 9 (the deputy had concluded MMI occurred on May 12, 2021). Since benefits were commenced by defendant in December of 2022, penalty benefits were also found inappropriate.

There was also a rate issue relating to whether short-staffing bonuses were to be included in claimant's rate calculation.  The bonuses occurred during Covid and were paid to all employees who worked extra shifts because of short staffing.  The commissiner concluded that these bonuses were not irregular, since they were paid to all employees once they work the extra shifts.  Claimant's rate correctly included these bonuses. 7 months from arbitration to appeal decision.

Madrid v. Mexico Lindo Grill & Cantina, No. 24700714.01 (Arb./App. Jan. 2, 2026) - In this case, the interim commissioner, who heard the case as a deputy, makes an arbitration decision which he indicates is a final agency decision for purposes of administrative efficiency, citing 10A.321(5) and 17A.15(1).  Neither of these sections really appears to justify the arbitration decision as appeal decision result.  10A.321(5) indicates that the decision of the WC commissioner is final agency action, but this particular provision does not indicate that an appeal under 10A.321(1) is forfeited in this situation.  It's certainly more efficient, but raises questions as to the legality of the order under Iowa law and also seems to raise due process concerns. That having been said, for purposes of this reviewing appeal decisions, this decision will be considered as such.

The issues in the case involve whether claimant sustained a work-related injury, whether the claim is barred under 85.16 as a willful act by a third party directed against claimant for reasons personal to claimant and the extent of temporary or permanent disability. There is also a rate issue, with both parties being chastised for not providing accurate records sufficient to determine claimant's rate.  Ultimately, claimant's rate of $900 is accepted, because it seems to take into account claimant's wages and tips

The injury occurred when claimant and a co-worker bumped into each other, causing claimant to spill food on her clothes. Words were exchanged and a video shows that when claimant was rolling silverware, there was an additional exchange, with the other employee and claimant was struck on the left side of her face. The commissioner finds that the incident occurred at work while both were performing work duties and notes that claimant and the other employee did not know each other outside of work. The testimony of claimant is accepted and defendants' 85.16 claim is rejected.

Claimant did not get treatment for her injuries because she could not afford care.  She did not have any specific restrictions applicable to the work injury. She subsequently was fired by the employer, but was earning approximately $900 per week at another job. Dr. Bansal diagnosed PTSD, which the commissioner accepts inasmuch as there was no contrary evidence presented. He recommended restrictions of not working during periods of high crowd dednsity and being able to take breaks as needed.  Although the commissioner acknowledges critiques of Dr. Bansal's opinions by defendants, since there was no other medical testimony presented, his opinions are accepted. The commissioner finds a 10% loss of earning capacity, given claimant's relatively young age, and relatively minor loss of income.  No healing period is awarded as claimant did not establish she was kept from work because of the injury. Claimant was found to be eligible for ongoing mental health care.  Penalty benefits were denied as defendants' 85.16 claim was a "weak, but arguably viable basis for denial."  Dr. Bansal's report was not compensated as claimant did not introduce specific costs for assessment.