Iowa Workers' Compensation

In a 6-1 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed their earlier ruling in Bell Bros. v. Gwinn , 779 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2010) and held that in order to take advantage of the beneficial care rule, claimant must prove that care that was unauthorized is reasonable and beneficial and provides a more favorable medical outcome than the care authorized by the employer.  Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., No. 16-1364 (Iowa June 8, 2018).  The court also concluded that a an employer who initially denies liability of a claim, can later find that the claim is work-related and regain control of the claim, including authorization of medical care.  Finally, the court held that if care is provided to claimant outside of the workers' compensation process, healing period benefits may be lost if claimant does not prove that the care obtained provided a more favorable outcome than that offered by the employer. Claimant suffered carpal tunnel problems, which were thought to be work-related by her i...

This case represents the fourth time the appellate court has ruled in Millenkamp v. Millenkamp Cattle Co. , No. 14-0732 (Iowa App. April 22, 2015).  In this iteration of the case, the court addresses an issue of alternate medical care, where claimant urges authorization of Dr. Neiman, the neurologist of his choice.  The court describes this proceeding as "virtually identical" to a 2013 ruling by the court denying alternate medical care. Claimant challenged the employer's refusal to authorize care with Dr. Neiman and the employer's authorization of Dr. Cullen.  The agency noted that claimant had failed to notify the employer of his original neurologist's retirement, his decision to begin treating with Dr. Neiman and his refusal to treat with Dr. Cullen. The agency concluded that claimant sought care with Dr. Neiman not because Dr. Neiman could provide better care, but simply because he wanted to choose his own doctor. The court found the agency's findings w...

Catholic Health Initiatives v. Hunter , No. 14-0202 (Iowa App. Nov. 26, 2014) involved questions of causation, healing period benefits, permanency benefits and medical care.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's award of benefits. Claimant had systemic lupus and was receiving social security disability benefits, but returned to work after those benefits were terminated.  She suffered a traumatic injury to her left wrist, hip and knee, and also complained of headaches as a part of this injury.  Following this incident, claimant had a fall at home and visited the doctor following that fall.  Claimant's symptoms had largely resolved when she slipped and fell again at work on March 3, 2010 (the earlier injuries were in 2009).  She was placed on work restrictions following this fall. Claimant was offered light duty work during the day, but could not perform that work because of family obligations.  No light duty work was available at night. ...

On March 5, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Bell Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning v. Gwinn , 779 NW2d 193 (Iowa 2010). The case involved the proof required by the employee to establish a claim for benefits and expenses on account of medical care obtained by the employee, but not authorized by the employer or the commissioner. Mr. Gwinn had obtained non-authorized care (surgery) a week before the arbitration hearing. The court noted that the employer generally had the right to control care (the so-called authorization defense), but that the statute allowed the employee to choose care in certain emergency situations, when the employer and employee agreed to alternate medical care, and when the commissioner approved alternate medical care. The court concluded, however, that the employer's right to select the medical care did not prevent the employee from choosing medical care at his or her own expense under two circumstances. The first circumstance is when the ...