Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Spence v N&L Parkison Trucking, Inc. , No. 23-0144 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury at work.  The doctors who he saw related to the injury found that claimant had a rotator cuff injury, but noted claimant had related them to the pain in his shoulder from an earlier two weeks earlier.  An IME related claimant's injury to the work events and provided him with a 12% impairment to the body as a whole as a result of the injury.  The deputy found claimant was not credible in part due to his past crimes of dishonesty and denied benefits and the commissioner affirmed.  The district court affirmed the decision of the agency. The Court of Appeals rejected claimant's argument that the decision of the commissioner was not supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that due regard must be given to the commissioner discretion to accept or reject testimony based on witness cre...

  Chavez v. MS Technology, LLC, No. 21-0777 (Iowa April 1, 2022) Deng v. Farmland Foods, Inc. , No. 21-0760 (Iowa April 1, 2022) In these two cases, the Supreme Court addressed, for the first time, whether the 2017 changes made by the Iowa Legislature creating a a new 85.34(2)(n) and a new scheduled member injury for injuries to the "shoulder" was limited to the glenohumeral joint or extended beyond that joint to other structures affecting the shoulder.  The question raised was whether injuries outside of the glenohumeral joint should be considered to be industrial disabilities or limited to the 400 weeks of benefits under 85.34(2)(n).  The Court, in an opinion announced in the Chavez  case, held that shoulder injuries were not limited to those affecting the glenohumeral joint and further found that shoulder cases are to be determined according to the 400 week schedule in 85.34(2)(n). Claimant Chavez was found to have a full thickness rotator cuff tear and underwent ...

  Cochran v. Quest Liner, Inc. , No. 21-0288 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work and was paid healing period benefits for a time.  Defendants sent claimant a notice that healing period benefits would be ended as required by section 86.13.  Claimant alleged that he was entitled to additional healing period benefits and the arbitration decision found that claimant was entitled to continuing healing period benefits.  Penalty benefits were denied as the commissioner indicated it was reasonably debatable whether claimant was entitled to continuing benefits. Claimant appealed, arguing that defendants failed to obtain an impairment rating or do any further investigation to determine if he was entitled to further benefits after their authorized treating physician placed him at MMI.  On appeal, the court finds that the issue raised implicates the application of law to fact standard of review and that the decision will only be overturned if the a...

Iowa's drug testing statute, section 730.5, provides a statutory remedy for wrongful discharge.  In Ferguson v. Exide Technologies , No. 18-1600 (Iowa Dec. 13, 2019), the Supreme Court concluded that an action for common law tort was not available and that the statutory remedy precluded common law recovery.  The court also found that attorney's fees were available under section 730.5. Plaintiff suffered injuries to her elbows as a result of her work with Exide.  When she reported the injury, she was informed that she had to submit to a drug and alcohol test under the employer's policy.  She refused to take the test and was fired for her refusal.  Plaintiff sued under 730.5 and also asserted a wrongful discharge tort.  The employer admitted to the statutory violation and a jury trial on damages, which was only allowed in the common law action, resulted in an award to plaintiff for lost wages and benefits and for emotional distress.  Plaintiff was a...

Claimant was found to have met her burden of demonstrating that she suffered a work related injury to her shoulder, but the agency concluded that she did not establish permanent total disability.  Merrick v. Crestridge, Inc., No. 17-0745 (Iowa App. March 21, 2018).  On appeal, claimant contends that the agency's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the agency misapplied the law to the facts. Claimant suffered a shoulder injury and the doctors initially believed that the injury had caused capsulitis.  She was placed on light duty work following the injury and was provided with injection therapy, which was helpful.  She was released to regular duty work, but did not return to work for the employer. The treating doctor concluded there was no permanent functional impairment and she was provided a 0% rating.  Dr. Kreiter, who performed an IME, found that claimant had a 13% BAW rating as a result of shoulder instability and a possible labral t...

Reihe v. Midwest Viking, Inc. , No. 17-0214 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2017), deals with the somewhat unusual situation where a district court remanded a matter to the workers' compensation commissioner for entry of an order nunc pro tunc correcting a compromise settlement agreement.  Claimant argues that the district court improperly considered extrinsic evidence and that reformation of the contract was barred by judicial estoppel. The settlement proposal that was agreed to indicated that defendants would pay roughly $75,000 less deductions of payment made to date (2/23/15), which totaled $21,080.12.  The settlement documents indicated the settlement was roughly $75,000 less weekly payment made from 3/5/15 until settlement approval.  Defendants would have received considerably more in credits under the original agreement than under the terms of the settlement documents.  The settlement documents were approved and defendants sent a check to claimant in an amount equivalent...

In Lampman v. Crystal, Inc., No. 14-1983 (Iowa App. 2015), claimant challenged a 5% industrial disability award as being too low. On substantial evidence grounds, the Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's award. Claimant injured her back lifting residents at a care center.  Claimant had a history of back problems, but had a specific incident on May 9, 2009.  She was fired by the nursing home two days after the incident.  The back injury was accepted and Dr. Miller ultimately indicated that claimant had an impairment of 1% to 2% of the lumbar back and released her without restrictions. Dr. Miller indicated that he did not believe claimant would get worse "as she is not working."  Dr. Jones performed an IME, provided a 5% impairment rating and imposed restrictions of lifting no more than 30 pounds occasionally and 15 pounds frequently.  He did not believe that claimant could perform her former duties as a CNA.  Claimant also saw Dr. McGuire, who agre...

In Pharaoh-Carlson v. Hy-Vee, Inc.,  No. 13-1446 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015), plaintiff alleged that the jury instruction provided by the district court misstated the law regarding the workers' compensation public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.  Plaintiff argued that he was discharged for filing a workers' compensation claim while defendant argued that the discharge was due to a no-call, no show on the part of plaintiff. The court first noted that plaintiff had waived its objection to the jury instruction because the objection to the instruction, although made by plaintiff, was insufficiently specific.  Despite this finding, the court went on to address the merits of the decision.  The instruction to the jury, among other things, indicated that employment at will employees could be discharged for any reason, that it is against public policy to discharge workers for pursuing their right under the workers' compensation act, and indicated it was no...

In Hendrickson v. Ihle Trucking, Inc. , No. 13-1114 (Iowa App. April 16, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed the commissioner's finding that claimant's injury was limited to his right hand.  The court first noted that its review of final agency action was "severely circumscribed" and stated that nearly all disputes are won or lost at the agency level.  Citing Pease  and House. The Court of Appeals noted that the district court had appropriately discussed and considered the evidence and affirmed the commissioner's decision that the injury was limited to the right hand.  The court noted that it could not improve upon the district court's analysis, which found that the agency's decision was detailed and exhaustive.  Based on the district court's decision, the court affirmed, citing Iowa Ct. R. 21.26.

In McCarthy v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. , No. 13-0636 (Iowa App. Dec. 18, 2013), the Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's findings that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled due to a respiratory injury and also affirmed the decision that claimant's tinnitus did not arise out of his employment.  Claimant was awarded an 80% industrial disability by the commissioner and was also awarded healing period benefits. The court affirmed in the face of claimant's appeal and defendants' cross-appeal. Claimant was exposed to isocyanates at work, and although defendants admitted this fact, they claimed he was not entitled to healing period or permanency benefits.  Defendants denied claimant's tinnitus.   On the tinnitus question, the court concludes that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's finding without discussion, citing Rule of Court 21.26(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e). On the question of healing period, defendants question whether claimant was ...

Cooksey v. Cargill, Inc., No. 12-1729 (Iowa App. Oct. 2, 2013), is a case in which claimant filed three alternate medical care proceedings against the employer.  In the first two proceedings, the employer agreed to provide the care sought by claimant and that care was provided.  In the first proceeding, a hearing was held, but the parties came to an agreement that claimant could see Dr. Abernathey and claimant would voluntarily dismiss his claim for alternate medical care.  In the second proceeding, claimant voluntarily dismissed before hearing because defendants agreed to provide the care requested.  In the third proceeding, the employer denied liability for the claim, after getting reports from two doctors questioning causation, and the alternate medical care hearing was dismissed under 876 IAC 4/48(7). Claimant, after having the AMC petition dismissed, filed a request for a ruling on the petition, based on due process grounds and judicial estoppel.  The dep...

Following the decision of the Supreme Court in Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc. , 777 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 2009), the case was remanded to the agency for a determination of whether claimant met the qualifications for review-reopening absent the "contemplation" standard.  On review, the commissioner again decided against claimant, and the case was decided by the Court of Appeals on March 28, 2012.  Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat, Inc. , No. 11-1177 (Iowa App. March 28, 2012). On appeal, Kohlhaas argued that the commissioner read the remand order from the Supreme Court too narrowly.  The court noted that in order to prevail on review reopening, the claimant must demonstrate that following the original settlement, the claimant must demonstrate he suffered an impairment or lessening of earning capacity proximately caused by the original injury.  Citing Simonson v. Snap-On Tools Corp. , 588 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1999).  The agency concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate incr...

In Serrato v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , No. 11-1186 (Iowa App. March 28, 2012), the Court of Appeals denied the claim that claimant suffered from COPD as a result of his occupational exposures at a meatpacking plant.  Claimant had argued that chemical residues left on the machines at the plant as a part of his duties cleaning the plant had led to his COPD.  The case was originally analyzed by the deputy as an injury case under Chapter 85, but was adjudicated at the commissioner's level as an occupational disease under Chapter 85A. The claim was denied at both the deputy and commissioner levels, which noted that there was little evidence directly linking claimant's exposures at work to his COPD.  One of claimant's doctors indicated that work at Tyson was an aggravating factor, but all the doctors noted that claimant's 1-3 pack per day cigarette smoking was of greater consequence in causing the COPD.    The commissioner concluded, based on his review of claimant'...