Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan , No. 23-1402 (Iowa Oct. 3, 2025) In this case interpreting 85.34(2)(v) of the Act, the Supreme Court concludes that an employee who returns to work at the same or greater wages following an otherwise industrial work injury is to have that injury considered functionally under 85.34(2)(v)(3). The decision reverses an earlier 2-1 decision of the Court of Appeals that had concluded the statute was unclear and was to be interpreted liberally. The court had concluded claimant's injury was to be determined industrially. Claimant suffered an injury at work and continued to work for the employer for 11 months with some work restrictions.  After returning to work, he was paid wages that equaled or exceeded the wages he had previously received. He testified that his pain caused him to miss "a fair bit of work." He left the job after 11 months to take a different job and move closer to his family.  He subsequently found work, making more than he was...

  Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan , No. 23-1402 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury at work and continued to work for the employer for 11 months with some work restrictions.  He left the job after 11 months to take a different job and move closer to his family.  He subsequently found work, making more than he was making at the time of his job with Den Hartog.  The commissioner concluded that claimant's back injury should be compensated industrially under the provisions of 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner concluded that the functional impairment provision of the statute did not apply to claimant because he voluntarily separated from the employer and had not been terminated by the employer. The district court affirmed, finding that 85.34(2)(v)'s bifurcated process would be imposed only when the employer returned to work and was then terminated by the employer. On review, the Court concludes that 85.34(2)(v) recognizes two categories for benefit calc...

Nordstrom v. Carmer , No. 23-1423 (Iowa App. May 8, 2024) Claimant suffered an accepted injury to her right shoulder in August of 2018. She subsequently developed pain in her left shoulder due to overcompensating for her right shoulder injury with her other arm. Claimant's IME physician opined that the left shoulder injury was due to overcompensation due to the right shoulder injury while defendants' doctor indicated that the left shoulder injury was due to rheumatoid arthritis and was not work-related.  The commissioner concluded that both shoulder injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and found that the injuries should be treated as unscheduled under 85.34(2)(v).  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissoiner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first concludes that the report of Dr. Segal, claimant's IME doctor, was supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that the decision concerning medical causation was essentially within the do...

Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Anderson , No. 22-1328 (Iowa March 29, 2024) In this case of first impression,  claimant suffered simultaneous injuries to his arm and shoulder arising out of his work.  The commissioner concluded that because such simultaneous injuries were not encompassed under the listing of scheduled member injuries in 85.34(2)(a)-(u), it should be considered under the catch-all provisions of 85.34(2)(v), which requires injuries not encompassed under 85.34(2)(a)-(u) to be considered industrially under the Code.  The commissioner concluded that claimant had suffered a 50% industrial disability. This finding was affirmed by the district court. The employer appealed to the Supreme Court, raising three issues.  First, there was insufficient evidence to support the conclusion that claimant's injuries arose out of employment. Second, the injuries should be compensated as unscheduled injuries.  Third, the 50% award was excessive.  The Court conclu...

  Chavez v. MS Technology, LLC, No. 21-0777 (Iowa April 1, 2022) Deng v. Farmland Foods, Inc. , No. 21-0760 (Iowa April 1, 2022) In these two cases, the Supreme Court addressed, for the first time, whether the 2017 changes made by the Iowa Legislature creating a a new 85.34(2)(n) and a new scheduled member injury for injuries to the "shoulder" was limited to the glenohumeral joint or extended beyond that joint to other structures affecting the shoulder.  The question raised was whether injuries outside of the glenohumeral joint should be considered to be industrial disabilities or limited to the 400 weeks of benefits under 85.34(2)(n).  The Court, in an opinion announced in the Chavez  case, held that shoulder injuries were not limited to those affecting the glenohumeral joint and further found that shoulder cases are to be determined according to the 400 week schedule in 85.34(2)(n). Claimant Chavez was found to have a full thickness rotator cuff tear and underwent ...