Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Roberts Dairy v. Billick , No. 13-1009 (Iowa April 3, 2015), the Supreme Court for the first time addressed the meaning of the apportionment provisions of section 85.34(7) of the Iowa Code and concluded that in a situation where an employee has an injury with one employer, and later has an injury with a different employer, apportionment does not apply. Claimant had a back injury in 1985 which resulted in the assessment of an 85% industrial disability in an agreement for settlement.  Claimant was able to get back to work and had another injury in 1993, resulting in injuries to his head, neck, left shoulder, ribs, back and left arm.  This was settled on an agreement for settlement under Missouri law for 18.5%.  Claimant began working for Roberts Dairy in 2001.  He suffered an ankle injury in 2004; injuries to his head, neck and left shoulder in 2004; a thoracic compression fracture in 2006; and a chest/shoulder injury which also caused emotional trauma in 2007. ...

In Hansen v. Snap-On Tools Manufacturing Company , No. 12-1038 (Iowa App. Feb. 27, 2013), among the issues addressed by the court was the questions of successive disabilities under section 85.34(7)(b) of the Code.  The court seems to conclude that section 85.34(7)(b) does not apply to unscheduled injuries, which would, if affirmed, have a serious impact on the current law concerning that section of the act. Hansen  also addresses issues concerning costs, extent of impairment, healing period and temporary partial benefits. Claimant sustained two injuries at work, a left shoulder injury in 2005 and an injury to her right hand and arm in 2007 which was traumatic.  The shoulder injury was cumulative, although there was medical evidence that there was a later acute injury to the shoulder superimposed on the cumulative process.  The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to 15% industrial disability, did not specifically accept or reject claimant's computatio...

Following the passage of section 85.34(7), the constitutionality of the bill (HF 2581) of which that provision as a part was challenged in the case of Godfrey v. State of Iowa , 752 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2008). http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20080620/05-1691.pdf . In Godfrey , the court found that the claimant lacked standing to challenge the provisions of the bill, and therefore did not rule on the constitutionality of that provision. More recently, the constitutionality of the bill of which the apportionment language was a part was again challenged, in Quaker Oats v. Main , 2010 WL 200420, No. 08-1507 (Iowa App. Jan. 22, 2010). http://www.iowacourts.gov/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20100122/9-896.pdf . In Main , the court found that the claimant's constitutional challenge was not filed in a timely manner, and hence could not be heard by the court. The court indicated that since the challenge had not been filed before HF 2581 was codified in January of...