Iowa Workers' Compensation

 In Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 20-0155 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the agency found that claimant was eligible for a 30% industrial disability award as well as additional healing period benefits.  The commissioner denied claimant's application for certain prescription medications. The district court affirmed on all three issues.  Defendant appeals on the two issues decided against it. In affirming the agency, the court noted it was the agency's duty to determine the credibility of witnesses, weight the evidence and decide the facts in issue.  On legal issues, the agency was given no deference.  On the healing period issue, defendant argued that the factors of 85.34(1) were not met.  the court disagreed, finding that claimant had not returned to work, was not medically capable of returning to substantially similar work and was not at MMI.  Defendant's argument that claimant's employment did not end and thus he did not meet the criteria for a ...

The court in Hill Concrete v. Dixson , No. 13-1778 (Iowa App. Oct. 15, 2014), addressed issues of healing period benefits in a review-reopening proceeding.  Defendants argued that healing period benefits can only be awarded on review reopening when the claimant's condition warrants additional benefits under section 86.14(2) rather than when claimant had reached MMI under section 85.34(1).  The court initially concludes that the timeframe for healing period benefits under 85.34(1) applies in review reopening proceedings, Since the decision of the agency finding that MMI had not occurred until May 4, 2012, the award of healing period benefits from July 16, 2010 to May 4 was appropriate. The case had originally been settled by the parties for 55% industrial disability, and claimant subsequently developed pain in his hip resulting in a hip arthroplasty.  Dr. Mahoney took him off work following the arthroplasty, and ultimately found MMI on May 4, 2012.  The agency award...

In Waldinger Corp. v. Mettler , 817 NW2d 1 (Iowa 2012), the Supreme Court finds that multiple healing periods are consistent with section 85.34(1) of the statute, and overrules its earlier decision in Ellingson v. Fleetguard , 599 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 1999).  Mettler involved a relatively straightforward situation where claimant was found to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) by his doctors, was paid permanency benefits, and was later found to be in need of additional surgery for his ankle problems. That surgery was performed, and a few years later a third surgery was performed, following which claimant was off work from September 18, 2007 until December 7, 2007.  In addition to awarding permanency benefits, the commissioner found that claimant was entitled to healing period benefits following the third surgery.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that the commissioner had no special expertise in interpreting the statute and held, based on Ellingson , t...