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 ...

 In Millanes-Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , No. 19-2077 (Iowa App. Jan. 21, 2021), the agency and district court denied benefits to claimant, finding that claimant suffered no permanent impairment from a fall that occurred in the course of his employment.  On appeal, claimant argues that the commissioner erred as a matter of law in considering only the AMA Guides to determine permanency.  Claimant also alleges that the agency erred in applying law to fact by failing to consider chronic pain as sufficient evidence of a change in physiological capacity in a scheduled member case.  Finally, claimant argues that the decision to deny permanent disability is not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant had a stipulated work injury and argued that he was entitled to permanency because of chronic pain and changes sustained in his left arm.  He argued that the commissioner erred by not considering any evidence beyond the AMA Guidelines when determining the extent...

In Horn v. Cummins Filtration-Lake Mills , No. 1300351 (Iowa App. Nov. 6, 2013), the Court of Appeals affirmed a decision awarding claimant the 6% impairment rating found by Dr. Kuhnlein, for an injury to the arm.  Three impairment ratings were presented at hearing, a 10% rating from Dr. Formanek, a 12% rating from Dr. Adams and a 6% rating from Dr. Kuhnlein.  The deputy awarded the 6% rating.  Claimant filed a rehearing application contesting that the deputy had used the wrong legal standard and noting that numerous aspects of the AMA Guides  were "faulty and unscientific."  The rehearing petition was not answered and was deemed denied.  The ruling was affirmed on appeal. On rehearing at the commissioner level, claimant argued that the determination of functional disability was not merely related to the impairment ratings.  The rehearing application was denied, and indicated that the arguments of counsel had been considered prior to the rendering of...

In Westling v. Hormel Foods Corp ., 810 NW2d 247 (Iowa 2012), claimant developed shoulder problems and what was originally disagnosed as a partial rotator cuff tear, which was followed by surgery.  The operative report noted significant fraying of the anterior and superior labrum, as well as inflammation along the subscapularis muscle, but no rotator cuff tear was found.  Claimant was released with no restrictions, and the surgeon concluded that the surgery did not cause claimant to have a permanent impairment.  Claimant subsequently retired. Dr. Mary Shook performed an IME for claimant, and Dr.Shook attributed pain to arthritis and not overuse.  She concluded that claimant's current symptoms are not from repetitive tasks due to work assignments.  Dr. Shook concluded there was a 2% impairment in claimant's right shoulder and 3% in the left shoulder, both caused by arthritis.  Claimant was found to have no permanent impairment at the commissioner level....

The Westling  case, decided on February 9, 2009, addressed the issue of whether claimant's work injury resulted in a permanent partial disability.  Claimant suffered an injury to his right shoulder while working for the employer, and had a debridement and acromionectomy.  He was returned to work without restrictions, worked for a few months, and retired from Hormel, where he had worked for thirty years. The deputy found that claimant had failed to establish a causal connection between his shoulder injury and permanent disability.  This decision was upheld by the commissioner, and Westling filed a rehearing request, asking the commissioner to decide whether the definition of permanent impairment in the AMA Guides  was synonymous with the judicial definition of functional disability.  The commissioner denied the request for rehearing, finding that the agency had relied on undisputed medical evidence that the claimant's work was not a cause of a permanent sh...