Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Anderson v. Care Initiatives, No. 14-0090 (Iowa App. Aug. 13, 2014), the agency had found that medical evidence supported a finding of causation.  On judicial review, the district court reversed.  The court of appeals reverses the district court, finding that there was substantial evidence to support the agency's finding. While working in a previous job, claimant had suffered an injury to her left shoulder and knee and was given permanent work restrictions in October of 2009 to avoid repetitive lifting, reaching above her head or working above her shoulder level.  She began working for Care Initiatives in July of 2010.  Care Initiatives knew of the restrictions, but found claimant was qualified to perform the job.  Two days before  she began work, claimant went to a nurse practitioner with complaints of back pain.  She was given home exercises and medications, but did not see a doctor prior to being employed by defendant. On February 25, 2011, c...

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 ABF Freight v. Veenendal , No. 11-1862 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012), the court affirmed, on substantial evidence grounds, a finding that claimant's back problems arose out of and in the course of employment and resulted in a 20% industrial disability.  The case demonstrates yet again that if a party loses before the commissioner, and there is evidence to support the decision, it is likely that the appellate courts will rule in favor of the party who prevailed at the commissioner level on substantial evidence grounds. In Veenendal , there was evidence from Dr. Abernathey that the claim was not work related and evidence from Dr. Brady and Dr. Neiman that it was work-related, and the court found that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence.  The court also found that the 20% industrial disability finding was supported by substantial evidence. In light of the Pease decision, which was cited in Veenendal , reversals of the commissioner's decision...

In Cozad v. Russell Corp. , No. 1-864 (Iowa App. Jan. 19, 2012), the Court of Appeals issued an interesting decision affirming a decision of the district court, which had reversed the agency action denying benefits.  The remarkable aspect of this decision is the fact that Cozad was decided only weeks after the Supreme Court's decision in Pease , in which the court had indicated its reaffirmance of the importance of substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases. Cozad involved a fairly straightforward back injury, in which the claimant reported an acute injury at work.  She had previously had a significant history of back problems, but all of the doctors who opined on the issue of causation found that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment and caused a permanent impairment.  The agency found that claimant had suffered only a temporary impairment as a result of the injury.  The decision was based on the fact that the doctors who opined on cau...