Iowa Workers' Compensation

P.M. Lattner Mfg. Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa App. June 7, 2023) The district court concluded that claimant was not entitled to payment for an IME and remanded the agency decision for consideration of the appropriate credit for a prior injury with the same employer.   The Court of Appeals remands to the commissioner to determine the fee related to claimant's right shoulder injury and also finds that the remand to determine credit was appropriate. Claimant had earlier suffered an injury at work to his right shoulder which resulted in a full commutation of benefits.  As a part of this settlement, the employer received a credit for permanent impairment to claimant's shoulder against future injuries to the same shoulder. Nine years later, claimant suffered another injury to the shoulder and obtained an IME for the shoulder.  The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to payment for the IME and found that defendant was not entitled to credit for the prior should...

  Midamerican Construction LLC v. Sandlin No. 22-0471 (Iowa App. Feb. 22, 2023) This case solely involved the payment for an IME.  Defendants claimed that claimant was not entitled to reimbursement of the IME and if there was such reimbursement, the amount awarded was unreasonable. The commissioner awarded the full cost of the IME. As a part of the case, Dr. Kenndy rated claimant's impairment as 0%. The fee for the impairment was $174.25.  Claimant subsequently saw Dr. Taylor for an IME and he provided a 2% impairment.  As a part of the IME, Dr. Taylor also determined causation.  His charge was $2020.00.   Defendants argued that the IME should not be paid because Dr. Kennedy had not been retained by the employer, as required by 85.39 and IBP, Inc. v. Harker , 633 N.W.2d 322 (Iowa 2001).  The Court concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's determination that defendants, through the medical case manager, had chosen Dr. Kenned...

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...