Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 17-1545 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2019) , the court affirms an award of permanent total disability and penalty.  The employer had also argued that the petition for review-reopening was untimely and the court affirms the rejection of this argument by the agency. In the original action, claimant was found to have a work-related injury, but as temporary total and permanency benefits were not in dispute, only medical benefits were awarded.  This decision was ultimately affirmed by the Court of Appeals.  Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening proceeding, at which the agency awarded permanent total disability.and penalty benefits.  On review, Pella argued that review-reopening is not available under Iowa Code 85.26(2) and 86.14(2) when the initial award did not include weekly disability benefits. The agency determined an award of solely medical benefits was eligible for review-reopening under section 85.26(2).  Pella argued "weekly...

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 14-0771 (Iowa App. May 6, 2015), the Court of Appeals addressed issues concerning the date of injury in the context of a cumulative injury, and notice issues associated with the date of injury.  Claimant was awarded benefits by the agency, but the district court concluded that the agency had failed to use the correct legal test in determining the date of the cumulative injury.  The district court remanded the case to the agency and found that the employer was entitled to assert an untimely notice defense on appeal.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the correct legal test was not used, but also finds that the notice defense could not be considered on remand. Claimant had a left shoulder injury and returned to work after that injury.  She began having problems in the right shoulder and saw a nurse practitioner for the problem on June 1, 2010.  Following an MRI, a rotator cuff tear in the right shoulder was als...

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 12-0592 (Iowa App. February 13, 2013), the Court of Appeals summarily affirmed the decision of the commissioner and district court concluding that claimant had suffered a compensable shoulder injury.  The court finds that although claimant's story of how the injury occurred might have seemed improbable, it was not so outrageous as to be unbelievable.  Since the conclusion was supported by substantial evidence, the award of benefits was affirmed.