Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Klein v. Whirlpool Corp. , No. 25-0458 (Iowa App. Jan. 7, 2026) The fighting issue in this case is whether a distal clavicle excision is to be rated in full or to be reduced based on a modifier.  In the case, claimant's IME doctor concluded the modifier did not apply under the Guides.  Defendant's doctor did not rate the distal clavicle excision at all, rating the shoulder only on the basis of loss of motion.  The agency concluded that in an earlier decision (Jay v. Archer Skid Loader Service), the modifier had been used even though no doctor had used this.  In that case, according to Jay, it was the agency's duty to calculate ratings in accordance with the AMA Guidelines.  In this case, the commissioner found that the agency must determine whether the rating was in compliance with the AMA Guides.  The District Court affirmed the decision of the agency, finding that the agency's interpretation of the Guides did not qualify as prohibited usage of agen...

  Koeller v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corp. , No. 25-0172 (Iowa App. Dec. 3, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury to his shoulder and was found to need a shoulder surgery , which included a distal clavicle excision .  Dr. Bollier , the physician who performed the surgery, provided a 6% permanent impairment rating based on loss of range of motion . No rating was provided for the distal clavicle excision, as Dr. Bollier did not believe this was related to the work injury. Dr. Taylor , claimant's IME physician , provided a 19% upper extremity impairment rating, which included a 10% rating for the distal clavicle excision.  In making this rating, Dr. Taylor indicated he did not use the 10% modifier from Table 16-18 of the AMA Guides because he believed that Table 16-27 was inadvertently listed as one of the tables to which the modifier should be applied.  Dr. Crites performed a record review and also found that the modifier did not apply and gave the full 10% impair...

LaGuerre v. JBS USA Holdings, Inc. , No. 24-2049 (Iowa App. Oct. 29, 2025) Claimant suffered a degloving injury which resulted in skin being grafted from claimant's right thigh to his right arm.  The employer's expert provided claimant a 9% upper extremity impairment despite the fact that the Guides treat a skin injury as an injury to the whole body.  Claimant's expert provided a 7% body as a whole impairment for a class I skin impairment.  The deputy found that claimant had sustained a scheduled injury, but provided a 7% whole body rating as the Guides instructed. The commissioner affirmed, as did the district court. On appeal, claimant argued that the legal question presented to the Court was whether the injury should be considered unscheduled because the Guides rates that impairment as a whole person impairment.  Claimant conceded that earlier precedent supported the deputy's decision to considered the injury a scheduled injury, but argued that the 2017 amendments...

  Barry v. John Deere Dubuque Works , No. 22-1000 (Iowa App. May 24, 2023) Claimant suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and was awarded an 11% whole person impairment rating following hearing.  Claimant subsequently developed additional problems with his bilateral hands and arms and sought review reopening based on changes in physical condition.  Dr. Mathew, who conducted an IME on the review reopening, concluded that claimant had additional permanent impairment and had also developed shoulder difficulties as a result of his work activities.  Additional restrictions were also imposed.  The agency concluded that claimant had not demonstrated a physical change in condition sufficient to justify additional benefits and the district court affirmed this holding.  The agency concluded that Dr. Mathew’s report was not credible because it was based on incorrect sections of the AMA Guides. The Court concluded that the agency had not abused its discretion ...

  Harrell v. Denver Findley & Sons, Inc. and Second Injury Fund , No. 21-0827 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) In this action, the deputy originally concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled with respect to the SIF.  The deputy found that under 85.34(2)(x), the Fund was not entitled to a credit because of a prior left knee surgery, the only evidence of which was raised at hearing by claimant, who noted that he had previously had a left total knee replacement.  No medical evidence or rating was provided concerning this injury.  On appeal, the commissioner found that the Fund was entitled to the credit, based on his own reading of the AMA Guides.  The commissioner reduced the permanent total disability award to 75% despite the fact that the parties had not raised this as an issue. On judicial review, the district court found that the Fund was entitled to credit, but remanded the case to the agency, finding that the commissioner should not have modi...