Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Reinsbach v. Great Lakes Cooperative , No. 14-0467 (Iowa July 9, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner that claimant's condition had deteriorated since his agreement for settlement and that claimant was entitled to healing period benefits and medical benefits as a result.  The court also remanded the costs issue to the agency in light of the recent Supreme Court decision in DART v. Young. On the review-reopening issue, the court found substantial evidence supported the agency's decision and affirmed, noting the thorough and well reasoned decision of the district court.  The decision was affirmed pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.126. On the costs issue, the district court upheld the agency's decision to assess Dr. Kuhnlein's IME costs as a hearing cost under 876 IAC 4.33(6).  The court noted that under DART v. Young, only costs associated with the preparation of the IME report could be taxed as costs.  "The underlying medical exp...

The Supreme Court, in DART v. Young , No. 14-0231 (Iowa June 5, 2015) , held that an independent medical evaluation under section 85.39 could not be completely paid under the "costs" section of the commissioner's administrative rules at 876 IAC 4.33(6).  The court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals, although discussing the issue in more detail.  The case was decided on a 4-3 vote, with Justices Hecht, Appel and Zager in dissent. The facts in DART  were relatively straightforward.  Defendants accepted claimant's back injury, but did not obtain a rating of impairment under section 85.39.  Claimant obtained an evaluation of her own, and sought to tax the expense of this evaluation as costs under 876 IAC 4.33(6).  The commissioner and the district court ordered that the evaluation to be paid in full under 4.33(6), and the district court affirmed.  The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that ordering payment for the exam as costs would defeat t...

Des Moines Area Regional Transit Authority v. Young , No. 14-0231 (Iowa App. Oct. 1, 2014) is a case involving the payment of an IME in a situation where the IME was obtained prior to defendants obtaining a rating of impairment.  The agency concluded that although the costs of the IME could not be paid for under section 85.39 of the Code, costs were properly taxed against defendants, in the discretion of the agency, under 876 IAC 4.33(6).  On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that an IME could not be paid for as costs. Claimant and the agency relied on the court of appeals decision in John Deere Dubuque Works v. Caven , 804 N.W.2d 297, 301 (Iowa App. 2011).  The Young court noted that the award in Caven  was based on section 86.40 and not on section 85.39, which is a true statement, so far as it goes.  The court concluded that in a situation where no rating had been obtained by defendants, "to allow a claimant the costs of an IME conducted prio...