Iowa Workers' Compensation

 In Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 20-0155 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the agency found that claimant was eligible for a 30% industrial disability award as well as additional healing period benefits.  The commissioner denied claimant's application for certain prescription medications. The district court affirmed on all three issues.  Defendant appeals on the two issues decided against it. In affirming the agency, the court noted it was the agency's duty to determine the credibility of witnesses, weight the evidence and decide the facts in issue.  On legal issues, the agency was given no deference.  On the healing period issue, defendant argued that the factors of 85.34(1) were not met.  the court disagreed, finding that claimant had not returned to work, was not medically capable of returning to substantially similar work and was not at MMI.  Defendant's argument that claimant's employment did not end and thus he did not meet the criteria for a ...

In Evenson v. Winnebago Industries, No. 14-2097 (Iowa June 3, 2016), the Supreme Court concluded that an employer's matching contributions to a 401(k) plan are not weekly earnings for rate purposes. The Court also concluded that the district court erred in affirming the date on which the healing period commenced and ended and the date on which PPD benefits commenced. On the rate issue, the court noted that "gross earnings" was defined in section 85.61(9) as recurring payment by the employer before deductions and excluding irregular bonuses, overtime pay, reimbursement of expenses and the employer's contribution for welfare benefits.  The Court notes that although an employee's 401(k) plan is related tangentially to his or her wage or salary, an employer's 401(k) plan matching contributions are based on the employee's choice and contribution.  Although the portion the employee chooses to contribute to the plan comes from his wages, the added contribution ...

In Waldinger Corp. v. Mettler , 817 NW2d 1 (Iowa 2012), the Supreme Court finds that multiple healing periods are consistent with section 85.34(1) of the statute, and overrules its earlier decision in Ellingson v. Fleetguard , 599 N.W.2d 440 (Iowa 1999).  Mettler involved a relatively straightforward situation where claimant was found to have reached maximum medical improvement (MMI) by his doctors, was paid permanency benefits, and was later found to be in need of additional surgery for his ankle problems. That surgery was performed, and a few years later a third surgery was performed, following which claimant was off work from September 18, 2007 until December 7, 2007.  In addition to awarding permanency benefits, the commissioner found that claimant was entitled to healing period benefits following the third surgery.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded that the commissioner had no special expertise in interpreting the statute and held, based on Ellingson , t...