Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Towns v. Silver Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation Center , No. 25-0310 (Iowa App. Dec. 17, 2025) In this somewhat complicated jurisdictional dispute, claimant initially filed an application for alternate medical care, which was denied.  A petition for judicial review resulted in the district court remanding the issue to the agency to redetermine the alternate medical care dispute based on more specific evidentiary findings.  The agency, through a deputy, issued a decision again denying alternate medical care.  Rather than filing an application for judicial review, claimant filed a document captioned "presentment of agency response to remand order for additional factual finding and request for order for hearing transcript and scheduling orders" with the district court. At hearing, defendants challenged jurisdiction, as claimant had not filed a petition for judicial review. Claimant argued the court had retained jurisdiction under its earlier remand order. The court ag...

In Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction, No. 18-0047 (Iowa App. Nov. 21, 2018), the court of appeals once again finds that strict compliance with section 17A.19(2) of the Code, a portion of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, is required, despite the liberal construction generally given to claims in the workers' compensation arena.  In Ortiz , the district court dismissed claimant's petition for judicial review because of the failure of claimant to substantially comply with the service requirements of section 17A.19(2) and the court of appeals upholds this dismissal. Following filing of the petition for judicial review in EDMS, respondents' counsel was added as a "party to the litigation" in EDMS.  A copy of the petition for judicial review was emailed to respondent's counsel.  Ortiz' counsel filed an affidavit of service noting that the PJR was emailed to counsel.  A copy of the petition was not placed in the regular mail until October 3, 2017.  The pet...

In The Cincinnati Insurance Companies v. Kirk , No. 0-950 (Iowa App. May 25, 2011), the Court of Appeals concluded that the district court had jurisdiction to hear claims made against the claimant for unjust enrichment and fraud after claimant allegedly fraudulently received medical and indemnity benefits from the workers' compensation carrier.  The facts of the case are unusual, and the decision of the Court of Appeals should be seen in that light. Claimant suffered an injury to his left arm, and was provided with medical treatment and indemnity benefits.  The insurance carrier decided to conduct surveillance when the healing process did not go as smoothly as expected.  That surveillance allegedly revealed that claimant, prior to an appointment with his workers' compensation physician, was seen striking his injured left arm repeatedly while sitting in his car.  Following this surveillance, the carrier filed claims for fraudulent representation, unjust enrichment, ...