Iowa Workers' Compensation

Over the years, the Pella Corporation (formerly Rolscreen) has paid yearly bonuses to its employees.  Although the bonuses differed in amount each year and there was no absolute certainty that the bonuses would be paid each year, those bonuses have been paid every year, since at least the late 1980s.  In Noel v. Rolscreen , 475 N.W.2d 666, 667 (Iowa App. 1991), the court affirmed the commissioner's conclusion that excluded the bonus from a claimant's gross earnings.  Following that case, Pella repeatedly pointed to Noel as excluding their bonuses from consideration in determining gross weekly wages.  The commissioner would sometimes include the bonus, sometimes not, and oftentimes, the cases would proceed to district court.  This is precisely the situation in Pella Corp. v. Minar , No. 13-1616 (Iowa App. Aug. 13, 2014). The court in Minar  posited the issue as whether the agency's inclusion of the bonuses in gross earnings was "irrational, illogical, or w...

Wal-Mart Stores v. Henle , Nos. 13-0366 & 13-0721 (Iowa App. January 9, 2014) involved a claimant who had a serious injury when a sixty pound stack of plastic totes  fell 15 feet, striking her head and left shoulder.  Following treatment, claimant returned to work at Wal-Mart, working four hour days.  She was continued as a full-time employee and received partial disability benefits.  She often missed work because of her headaches, and these days were considered as excused absences, "which was an exception to the company's usual attendance policy. The deputy found claimant permanently and totally disabled and ordered benefits beginning on May 30, 2006, "but for those dates when the employer has provided claimant with accommodated employment."  The claim was affirmed on appeal.  Wal-Mart filed a petition for judicial review, and claimant moved for entry of judgment under section 86.42.  Ultimately, the decision was affirmed and the judgment was en...

The case of Burton v. Hilltop Care Center , 813 NW2d 250 (Iowa 2012), arose out of a unique set of facts, but has led to a decision in which the court has modified its standard of review principles and simultaneously urged the commissioner's office to rethink its manner of deciding cases. The primary issue involved in Burton was a rate question for a claimant who was allegedly supposed to receive a $1,000 per year raise, but was paid (for 15 months) a wage that was $1,000 more on a monthly basis than she had previously been receiving.  The commissioner and court of appeals concluded that the rate should be decided on the basis of the $1,000 additional per month that had been paid, and defendants challenged this conclusion, in addition to challenging a penalty finding and the award of a 30% industrial disability from abdominal injuries sustained by the claimant. In setting forth its standard of review for the case, the court cites the familiar principles of substantial evidence...