Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Barry v. John Deere Dubuque Works , No. 22-1000 (Iowa App. May 24, 2023) Claimant suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and was awarded an 11% whole person impairment rating following hearing.  Claimant subsequently developed additional problems with his bilateral hands and arms and sought review reopening based on changes in physical condition.  Dr. Mathew, who conducted an IME on the review reopening, concluded that claimant had additional permanent impairment and had also developed shoulder difficulties as a result of his work activities.  Additional restrictions were also imposed.  The agency concluded that claimant had not demonstrated a physical change in condition sufficient to justify additional benefits and the district court affirmed this holding.  The agency concluded that Dr. Mathew’s report was not credible because it was based on incorrect sections of the AMA Guides. The Court concluded that the agency had not abused its discretion ...

In McDonald v EZ Pay , No. 18-1152 (Iowa App. July 24, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed a decision of the commissioner finding that claimant's legionnaire's disease was not related to an incident at work where he cut his hand while attempting to catch a cutting blade.  At hearing, claimant presented evidence from his treating physician that the cut and subsequent infection made him more susceptible to contacting legionnaire's.   A supervisor at the plant indicated in an affidavit that there had never been Legionella bacteria found at the plant and opined that he did not believe this condition could have been caused by the operations at the plant.  The agency initially accepted the reports of the doctor over that of the supervisor and awarded benefits.  This finding, however, was reversed on appeal, finding that neither the treating doctor nor Dr. Bansal was aware of the procedures at the plant to prevent Legionella bacteria from infecting the water in the ...

In Bos v. Climate Engineers , No. 17-0159 (Iowa App. Nov. 22, 2017), the commissioner had concluded that claimant did not have a claim for depression following a shoulder injury and rejected the report of claimant's family physician that the depression was connected to the underlying injury.  The commissioner also allowed the admission of a vocational report from defendants even though the expert had not been named in a timely fashion and had not been produced until 18 days before hearing.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's action with respect to the doctor's findings, but rejected the admission of the late vocational report and remanded to the agency for further opinion. Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals.  On the evidentiary issue, the court found that even though the opinion of the family doctor had been unrebutted, the commissioner was within his rights to reject that evidence.  The commissioner had found that it had been several month...

In Lampman v. Crystal, Inc., No. 14-1983 (Iowa App. 2015), claimant challenged a 5% industrial disability award as being too low. On substantial evidence grounds, the Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's award. Claimant injured her back lifting residents at a care center.  Claimant had a history of back problems, but had a specific incident on May 9, 2009.  She was fired by the nursing home two days after the incident.  The back injury was accepted and Dr. Miller ultimately indicated that claimant had an impairment of 1% to 2% of the lumbar back and released her without restrictions. Dr. Miller indicated that he did not believe claimant would get worse "as she is not working."  Dr. Jones performed an IME, provided a 5% impairment rating and imposed restrictions of lifting no more than 30 pounds occasionally and 15 pounds frequently.  He did not believe that claimant could perform her former duties as a CNA.  Claimant also saw Dr. McGuire, who agre...

The court in Lull-Gumbusky v. Great Plains Communications , No. 13-1886 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015) addressed a number of issues and affirmed the decision of the commissioner on all issues. The first issue presented to the court involved the exhibits presented by claimant.  The deputy found at hearing that the exhibits did not conform to the format outlined in the hearing report, because they were organized chronologically rather than chronologically by provider.  At hearing, the deputy indicated that the noncompliance would lead to the exclusion of evidence.  Claimant did not conform his exhibits and some of the exhibits were excluded.  The Court of Appeals noted that the agency had broad discretion in oversight and determinations about the admissibility of evidence and affirmed the exclusion of certain evidence. The commissioner found that review reopening was not appropriate because substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the commissioner that the facts...

Smithway Motor Xpress v. McDermott , No. 12-2296 (Iowa App. Nov. 20, 2013) is another in a line of cases where the Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the agency on substantial evidence grounds.  Claimant suffered a back injury while working for the employer.  He wished to leave his employment as a truck driver and was required to obtain a DOT physical.  He did not mention his back problems to the physician at the DOT physical.  He continued to have back problems and had continued treatment for those problems.  Dr. Neiman provided causal connection for the injury, but the hearing deputy found that a causal connection had not been established.  The commissioner reversed on appeal and provided a 40% industrial disability award. The court finds that the question of causation presents a mixed question of law an fact, adjudicated by the abuse of discretion standard.  The court must consider whether the law was applied in an unjustifiable, irrational ...

In City of Davenport v. Newcomb , No. 11-1035 (Iowa App. April 11, 2012), the court addressed an issue that has been the subject of a great deal of controversy - the ability of the defendants to obtain an examination under section 85.39 of the Iowa Code when a claim has been denied.  The court decided, contrary to the previous views of the commissioner, that defendants had the right to such an examination in denied cases.  In Newcomb , the court also addressed issues of whether the deputy erred in permitting the testimony of certain witnesses but not other, and whether penalty benefits were appropriate. The question concerning testimony arose because one deputy heard the evidence before making a decision on the case.  The deputy assigned to decide the claim (Walshire) decided that he needed to hear from the claimant and his wife because their testimony was so different than the treating physician concerning the back problems alleged by claimant, and their credibility ha...

The case of Square D Company v. Plagmann ,No. 1-869 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2011) addressed an issue that does not appear frequently before the appellate courts - the question of tinnitus.  In Plagmann , the court concluded that the decision of the deputy commissioner who found that claimant's tinnitus was related to work was supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Tyler concluded that claimant's work with Square D had resulted in hearing loss and tinnitus, and provided a 4.5% impairment rating.  Dr. Tyler also found, incorrectly, that claimant had not worn hearing protection until he had worked with the employer for fourteen years (claimant had testified that even though there was no hearing protection program, he had worn hearing protection).  Dr. Hoisington concluded that claimant's hearing loss and tinnitus were not related to his work, in part because his hearing loss continued to worsen after he left work.  The deputy who heard the case sided with Dr. Hoisington, ...