Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Cochran v. Quest Liner, Inc. , No. 21-0288 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work and was paid healing period benefits for a time.  Defendants sent claimant a notice that healing period benefits would be ended as required by section 86.13.  Claimant alleged that he was entitled to additional healing period benefits and the arbitration decision found that claimant was entitled to continuing healing period benefits.  Penalty benefits were denied as the commissioner indicated it was reasonably debatable whether claimant was entitled to continuing benefits. Claimant appealed, arguing that defendants failed to obtain an impairment rating or do any further investigation to determine if he was entitled to further benefits after their authorized treating physician placed him at MMI.  On appeal, the court finds that the issue raised implicates the application of law to fact standard of review and that the decision will only be overturned if the a...

The court in Jenson v Cummins Filtration-Lake Mills , No. 13-1733 (Iowa App. Jan. 14, 2015) affirmed an award of benefits for a back injury, and the penalty benefits associated with that award. The court also affirmed the denial of claimant's knee claim. Claimant appealed the denial of the knee claim and also argued that the district court entered a judgment not in conformance with the commissioner's award regarding the back injury. At hearing, the deputy concluded that claimant had failed to meet her burden of proof with respect to the knee claim.  The commissioner affirmed, noting that the deputy's decision was based largely on the deputy's assessment that claimant's testimony was not credible or convincing.  The district court noted that the information on which Dr. Kuhnlein relied for his causation opinion was not correct (as the deputy had found) because claimant was not required to plant her knee in the way stated to Dr. Kuhnlein.  The deputy concluded that ...

In Vitzthum v. KLM Acquisition Corp. , No. 13-1441 (Iowa App. Oct. 1, 2014), the court of appeals addressed questions related to the correct rate, the imposition of penalties and costs.  The court affirms the rate questions, finds that there was substantial evidence to support the denial of penalties and affirms the costs findings of the commissioner. At the appeal level, the commissioner found that the higher rate urged by claimant ($305.29) was correct, but refused to impose penalties for the underpayment of rate on the employer.  The district court affirmed this amount, but remanded for further fact-finding on the issue of penalty benefits based on the underpayment of the correct weekly rate after July 1, 2009, the date the new penalty statute (section 86.13(4)) went into effect. The court concludes that the rate was correctly determined, finding that the usual calculation method in section 85.36(6) controlled.  The employer had argued that its payment of wages was...