Iowa Workers' Compensation

H.D. Supply Management v. Smith , No. 23-1656 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2024) In this interlocutory appeal, the parties requested the Court to decide whether a stay of a workers' compensation award was appropriate.  Claimant had filed a request for judgment under 86.42 following the commissioner's finding of permanent total disability.  Defendants moved to stay enforcement, despite the fact they had failed to post a bond in a timely manner.  Ultimately, the district court stayed the order, finding that claimant would  not be prejudiced despite the late posting of the bond. While the appeal was pending, the underlying claim was reversed and remanded to the commissioner (the underlying issue in the case was whether a combined arm and shoulder injury should be treated industrially, which the Supreme Court answered in the negative in Bridgestone Americas v. Anderson , 4 N.W.3d 676 (Iowa 2024). The parties argued that the case was not moot, given the fact that some benefits wo...

Whirlpool Corp. v. Davis , No. 12-1962 (Iowa App. July 24, 2013) involved a finding by the commissioner that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  The court affirmed this aspect of the case on substantial evidence grounds, and also concluded that reimbursement for a deposition was statutorily limited to $150.00. Claimant suffered a back injury, resulting in a 7% impairment rating from defendants' doctor, Dr. Mark Taylor.  An IME from Dr. John Kuhnlein indicated that he could not say, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, that the current back problems were related to the original work injury, although the back problems were related to one of the incidents that had occurred at Whirlpool.  He provided a 5% impairment rating.  Claimant ultimately left his job and was found eligible for social security disability benefits. The deputy found that claimant was credible, and credited the findings of Dr. Taylor, Dr. Kuhnlein and Dr. Buresh.  He r...

In Annett Holdings v. Pepple , No. 12-0468 (Iowa App. Oct. 17, 2012), claimant had sought and obtained a judgment under section 86.42 of the Code.  At the time that claimant sought judgment, defendant sought a stay of that judgment, which was denied by the district court.  The court found that although defendant might suffer harm from the judgment, the harm was less certain and less significant than the harm to claimant. On appeal, the court found that the district court had considered the factors set forth in section 17A.19(5)(c) of the Code, in addition to the Supreme Court's decision in Grinnell College v. Osborn.  The court found that "when  a party requesting judgment has met all the conditions of Iowa Code section 86.42, the district court is required to enter the judgment in favor of the party requesting judgment."  The court found that this was the case, and affirmed the decision of the district court. 

In Leliefeld v. Liberty Mutual Ins. , No. 1-636 (Iowa App. Nov. 9, 2011), the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court ruling which had declined to stay a bad faith action pending resolution of the underlying workers' compensation case.  The district court had held that although it was reasonable to delay a trial in the bad faith claim until the workers' compensation claim had been resolved, there was no reason to stay discovery in the bad faith action.  The court noted that Reedy v. White Consolidated Industries , 503 N.W.2d 601 (Iowa 1993) had addressed a similar question, and had concluded that a stay was not always necessary and that the court should follow a discretionary abstention policy that would delay the consideration of the issues by the court.  This did not mean, however, that actions that were preliminary to a determination by the court should necessarily be stayed, and the Court of Appeals noted that Reedy had not mandated that a stay be granted or tha...