Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Menard, Inc. v. Simmer , No. 14-2078 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed a finding that under the discovery rule, claimant had provided timely notice of his injury. As a part of his work with Menard's, claimant was required to carry goods from the store to customers cars.  These loads weighed up to 300 pounds.  In 2008 and 2009, claimant began to experience pain in his feet and up to his thighs while working.  By April of 2010, pain had spread to claimant's lower back, and claimant's physician referred him to the Minnesota Back Institute.  In May of 2010, claimant learned for the first time that he had scoliosis.  He was provided with an injection and therapy and returned to Menard's without restriction.  By early 2012, claimant's back problems had worsened and the doctor at Minnesota Back Institute indicated that his employment may have led to his worsening back condition.  He also performed surgery on March 7, 2012. Claima...

Menard, Inc. v. Fenton , No. 14-1924 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), is yet another substantial evidence case in which the Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the commissioner.  Claimant sustained a back injury while working at Menard and the deputy found that a 50% industrial disability award was appropriate.  The commissioner affirmed. On appeal, Menard argued that because the commissioner failed to compare the condition of claimant's low back before the with injury with his condition after having undergone surgery, this was an irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable application of law to fact.  The court rejected this argument, finding that the deputy commissioner summarized claimant's medical history and found no evidence there was any permanent impairment prior to claimant's injury at Menard.  The finding was supported by substantial evidence.  The deputy also found that claimant's position had changed and that his new job was not a permanent posit...

In Menard, Inc. v. Scheffert,  No. 14-1029 (Iowa App. 2014), the Court of Appeals concluded that claimant's rate, which was computed on the basis of having received bonuses, was properly computed by the agency.  The court concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant's bonuses were not irregular was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable. Claimant received a bonus each year that her department was profitable.  From 1996 to 2008, the date of injury in the case, claimant received some amount of bonus, called the TPS bonus.  Additionally, claimant was eligible for an IPS bonus if the store was profitable.  Neither bonus was guaranteed, and could be revised downward based on fines assessed against employees.  Claimant received both a TPS and IPS bonus in the year of the injury, and the agency included these bonuses in determining claimant's rate.  The district court concluded that the agency's findings on this point were not irration...

In Menard, Inc. v. Bahic, No. 14-0239 (Iowa App. Nov. 26, 2014), the commissioner found a 60% industrial disability and concluded that the commencement date for permanency was October of 2012.  Defendants urged the court to reverse, arguing that permanency should commence in May of 2011 and that the industrial disability award was inappropriate.  The court of appeals affirmed the decision of the agency. Claimant suffered a stipulated injury to his back in August of 2010.  Dr. Igram, although finding that surgery was not appropriate, imposed 20 pound restrictions on claimant, which precluded his former, heavy, work.  Claimant was placed on a job in the sales department answering phones and helping customers.  He worked on this job from February of 2011 until his termination in July of 2011. He received temporary partial disability benefits during this time, because he was often not provided with his former hours of work. The employer sought to place claimant ...