Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Con-E-C v. Nowatzke , No. 14-0470 (Iowa App. Oct. 1, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed a finding of permanent total disability based on substantial evidence.  The court, in its initial statement of the case notes that review of final agency action is "severely circumscribed", that nearly all disputes are won or lost at the agency level, that judgment calls are within the province of the agency, and that it is the commissioner and not the courts, that weight the evidence and assesses credibility. Claimant suffered a low back injury while working for the employer.  The agency concluded that the injury was causally related to claimant's work and concluded that claimant was an odd lot worker.  The court ultimately affirms the agency based on the district court's thorough and well-reasoned ruling, without additional analysis.  Citing Iowa Ct. R. 21.26.

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.

Claimant in Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Wander , No. 13-0567 (Iowa App. January 23, 2014) suffered a back injury while lifting a wood storm door core onto an assembly line.  Claimant was provided several high-dose steroidal regimens.  A MRI showed a disk bulge and possible avascular necrosis in the hips.  Ultimately, claimant had a total hip replacement with Dr. Noiseux.  Dr. Noiseux related this to the work accident.  Claimant also developed necrosis in the shoulder, and this was related to the steroidal treatment by Dr. Emerson.  Dr. Galles agreed with this assessment.  At hearing, the parties stipulated that the shoulder necrosis was work-related, but not the hip necrosis (primarily because the hip necrosis was diagnosed just after the steroidal treatment had begun). The deputy found that the hip condition was related to employment.  On appeal, the commissioner affirmed "noting the deficiencies in the opinions of all the physicians who render...