Iowa Workers' Compensation

Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats , No 23-0393 (Iowa App Feb. 7, 2024)  Claimant retired on October 31, 2018 and notified his employer of an alleged cumulative back injury on October 22, 2019.  The commissioner concluded that the claim was barred by section 85.23, as claimant had not notified the employer of his injury in a timely manner.  Claimant's discovery rule argument was rejected,  The district court also rejected the argument. At the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the the commissioner erred by not making separate determinations as to when claimant knew the nature, seriousness and compensable character of his injury.  The Court notes this argument, but indicates that following the appeal, the Supreme Court had issued its decision in Tweeten v. Tweeten , 2023 WL 8853036 (Iowa 2023).  The Court concluded that under Tweeten , the issue of whether the application of the discovery rule applied to only one or all three of the elements of the discovery rul...

  Central Iowa Fencing v. Hays , No. 21-1530 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work which resulted in his physician restricting him from returning to work.  Because of this restriction, the employer would not place claimant back to work, at the same time denying his workers' compensation claim.  Claimant applied for and was granted benefits because the employer had no work available or was not willing to accommodate work restrictions.  The deputy ultimately found that claimant had suffered a cumulative low back injury.  Because claimant had not reached MMI, only temporary benefits were awarded.  The commissioner affirmed this decision. On judicial review, the district court found that there was substantial evidence to support the decision of the commissioner and affirmed that decision. The Court of Appeals first dismisses defendants' argument that because claimant did not specifically plead a cumulative injury, the agency could not ha...

Tew v. Sparboe Farms , No. 20-1202 (Iowa App. Oct. 6, 2021)  Claimant suffered an injury to his back prior to beginning his work at Sparboe Farms, as a result of a motor vehicle accident.  In 2016, he began suffering additional pain in his back, which he ultimately attributed to  his work.  He reported sleeping wrong to his supervisor and also noted that he fell while mowing his lawn.  Claimant did not report his injury as work-related until two months after he began having a recurrence of back pain.  On these facts, the commissioner found that claimant's attribution of his back injury to his work was not credible and benefits were denied.  Claimant appeals. On appeal, claimant argues that the commissioner erred in not finding a cumulative injury and claims that the commissioner did not correctly apply the law to his claim.  The Court of Appeals dismisses this argument, finding that although the injury could well have been cumulative, the commissi...

As presented by the Supreme Court in Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc. , No. 18-1051 (Iowa May 1,  2020), the issue before the court was "whether a workers' compensation claimant who receives disability benefits for a traumatic injury can later recover disability benefits on a separate disability claim if the cumulative injury is based solely on aggravation of the earlier traumatic injury."  The court unanimously concluded that Ms. Gumm could not recover. Claimant initially suffered a fracture of her right ankle, for which she was paid WC benefits following surgery.  The last payment of benefits for the injury was on May 10, 2010.  Claimant continued to suffer from right ankle pain and in January of 2012 returned to the treating physician.  The physician believed that this could have been from a coincidence or from compensating for her right ankle pain. On April 11, 2012, she underwent another surgery, returning to full-duty work on May 3.  Cla...

In Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc., No. 18-1051 (Iowa App. May 15, 2019), the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the commissioner and district court and held that a claimant was not required to prove a discrete and distinct injury to prove a cumulative injury had occurred.  Claimant had suffered and injury to her right ankle in 2008 and was provided with a 17% rating for this injury.  She returned to work following the injury.  In 2014, claimant filed another petition, alleging that she had sustained a cumulative injury to the right ankle following her return to work.  The commissioner concluded that claimant had not suffered a distinct and discrete injury and held that under Ellingson , the failure to demonstrate such an injury defeated her claim.  The commissioner found that the deterioration of claimant's ankle condition was a sequella of the initial injury and was not compensable, as claimant was outside the statute on limitations on ...

In Ruiz v. Revstone Casting Industries, LLC , No. 16-1728 (Iowa App. Dec. 6, 2017), the court affirmed the decision of the agency that claimant had not provided sufficient notice of his hearing loss, back and hand  claims and affirmed the district court's order remanding claimant's back injury claim to the commissioner. Claimant worked for the employer as a grinder for 25 years. He began to feel he had a right to "something" from his injuries after he was prescribed hearing aids.  Claimant noted that he had made doctors' appointments on his own for his hands.  Claimant ultimately retired from Revstone in 2011 because of the pain in his foot, hands and back in addition to his hearing loss.  With respect to the carpal tunnel claim, the commissioner failed to specify a date of injury for the claim.  The court indicates that the carpal tunnel claim was a cumulative injury requiring application of the standard under Oscar Meyer Foods Corp. v. Tasler  which i...

In Eaton Corp. v. Archer, No. 15-0255 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner addressed a claim where claimant developed carpal tunnel syndrome.  There was a dispute concerning causation and a dispute over whether claimant was able to return to substantially similar work.  The commissioner concluded that claimant's injury was related to his work activities, and concluded that claimant could not return to former work, given the continuing pain in his hands. Following the injury, claimant missed work because of the pain in his hands and was discharged by the employer.  On appeal, the primary issue was the healing period issue.  The employer claimed that claimant could return to his former work, and cited their IME physician, Dr. Hsu, in support.  Claimant countered with the IME of Dr. Gammel.  The agency concluded, based on the opinion of Dr. Gammel and claimant's testimony that he could not return to substantially similar work. The district court aff...

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 14-0771 (Iowa App. May 6, 2015), the Court of Appeals addressed issues concerning the date of injury in the context of a cumulative injury, and notice issues associated with the date of injury.  Claimant was awarded benefits by the agency, but the district court concluded that the agency had failed to use the correct legal test in determining the date of the cumulative injury.  The district court remanded the case to the agency and found that the employer was entitled to assert an untimely notice defense on appeal.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the correct legal test was not used, but also finds that the notice defense could not be considered on remand. Claimant had a left shoulder injury and returned to work after that injury.  She began having problems in the right shoulder and saw a nurse practitioner for the problem on June 1, 2010.  Following an MRI, a rotator cuff tear in the right shoulder was als...

In West Des Moines Community School District v. Fry , No. 13-1391 (Oct. 19, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed the commissioner's order finding that claimant had suffered an injury that had both traumatic and cumulative aspects.  Claimant had suffered two traumatic injuries at work, one in 2007 causing injury to his left hip, collarbone and left shoulder and the second incident in 2008 causing injury to the left hip and SI joint.  Claimant initially filed claims relating to both injuries, but subsequently dismissed the 2007 claim.  With respect to the 2008 claim, claimant alleged that the injury was both acute and cumulative. The arbitration decision rejected the findings of Dr. Stoken because she had lumped together the two injuries from 2007 and 2008.  On appeal, the commissioner reversed, relying on the opinions of claimant's family physician, Dr. Honsey, as well as Dr. Stoken's IME.  The commissioner noted that Dr. Honsey had concluded that claimant's pa...

In Tyson Foods v. Shaw , No. 12-0432 (Iowa App. Oct. 3, 2012), the court addressed issues of the manifestation date of the injury, and the corollary issue relating to the 90 day notice requirement.  The court affirmed the commissioner's findings which indicated that the manifestation date was sufficient to bring claimant within the 90 day notice requirement.  The court also found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant's manifestation was correct found by the agency. Claimant alleged a cumulative injury to his feet from his work at Tyson.  As a part of his job, he had to lift 50 pound bags of chemicals, and had to push heavy items.  He was required to wear rubber pullover boots on the job.  Claimant testified that his feet slipped in the boots because they were too large.  Claimant also had diabetes.  When problems began to develop with his feet, Tyson replaced his standard boots with leather steel toed boots.  Claimant ...

In ABCM Corp. v. Manning , No. 1-225 (Iowa App.  May 25, 2011), the court addressed the issue of cumulative injuries, and the further question of when those injuries became manifest.  Claimant suffered injuries to her knees and low back, which ultimately led to knee replacement surgery.  The commissioner found that claimant was not aware of the compensable nature of her injuries until after she had left employment, and rejected defendants' arguments that they had improper notice and that the statute of limitations had run. The court noted that the questions of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable character of the injury under Herrera  was a question of fact under Midwest Ambulance v. Ruud .  Here, the commissioner had a substantial degree of latitude in determining when the claimant should have known, as a reasonable person, when her injuries were compensable.  There was no error of law in finding that claimant did not know about compensabilit...