Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Towns v. Silver Oaks Nursing and Rehabilitation Center , No. 25-0310 (Iowa App. Dec. 17, 2025) In this somewhat complicated jurisdictional dispute, claimant initially filed an application for alternate medical care, which was denied.  A petition for judicial review resulted in the district court remanding the issue to the agency to redetermine the alternate medical care dispute based on more specific evidentiary findings.  The agency, through a deputy, issued a decision again denying alternate medical care.  Rather than filing an application for judicial review, claimant filed a document captioned "presentment of agency response to remand order for additional factual finding and request for order for hearing transcript and scheduling orders" with the district court. At hearing, defendants challenged jurisdiction, as claimant had not filed a petition for judicial review. Claimant argued the court had retained jurisdiction under its earlier remand order. The court ag...

  Hormel Foods Corp. v. Yunior Tamayo-Perez , No. 23-0212 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023) In this procedurally confusing case, claimant initially filed for alternate medical care, with the claim later being dismissed when defendants agreed to provide care.  Claimant later filed a second application, alleging that defendants were interfering with care.  Following hearing, care in the form of the treatment recommended by the authorized physicians was ordered.  A third application was filed, seeking psychological evaluation with claimant's recommended evaluator.  The application was granted.  The second and third applications involved a spinal cord stimulator, which claimant ultimately decided not to pursue.  A fourth application was filed, asking for pain treatment and consideration of osteopathic manipulative therapy.  Defendants denied liability, based on a "stale" opinion by an orthopaedic spine physician.  The application was dismissed because of...

  Waterloo Community School District v. DeMaldonado No. 22-0845 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) Claimant had years of treatment, primarily physical therapy, for numerous injuries sustained while working.  After several years of treatment, she sought alternate medical care in the form of pain management recommended by her treating physician, which was denied by the employer.  In the application for alternate medical care, the deputy concluded that claimant had proved that the care provided was unreasonable but denied that the employer had abandoned care.  The school district appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the commissioner. As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals addressed an argument made by claimant that the employer's judicial review petition had not been timely filed.  The claimant had initially filed for alternate medical care, but had dismissed the petition and then refiled.  In the judicial review action, the employer had a...

  Waterloo Community School District v. DeMaldonado , No. 22-0845 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) Claimant was injured at work and received treatment for several years.  After a time, she became dissatisfied with care, as the employer refused to authorize pain management, referred her to providers unsuited to treating her condition, lied about the authorization for care and interfered with care she sought from her own selected providers.  After filing an application for alternate medical care, the deputy ordered defendants to provide pain management with Dr. Mathew.  There was found to be insufficient proof that the employer had abandoned DeMaldonado's care.  Defendants were cautioned, however, not to interfere with the medical judgment of its own treating physician.  The district court affirmed the decision of the agency. On appeal, claimant first raised an issue of the timeliness of of the judicial review petition.  Claimant had filed an alternate care peti...

  Denemark v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 21-1851 (Iowa App. Sept. 21, 2022) Claimant injured his arm and originally had injections for the pain that developed in the wake of the injury.  This did not alleviate the pain and an arthroscopic surgery and debridement of the TFCC was recommended by Dr. Kuo.  On September 18, ADM indicated that it would investigate causation before authorizing surgery.  The surgery was authorized on October 21 and care was transferred to UIHC at the request of Dr. Kuo's office.  Surgery was authorized for December 29. This surgery was rescheduled for January 12.  A Covid screening was required prior to surgery, but ADM failed to schedule transportation to the screening.  The surgery was rescheduled and ultimately took place on January 29. In the midst of these activities, claimant filed a request for alternate medical care alleging that defendant sent its safety manager to claimant's medical appointments, improperly...

  West Central Cooperative v. Sullivan , No. 21-1559 (Iowa App. Aug. 31, 2022) In the original administrative action in this case, claimant, who had an injury in 2011, sought authorization for a spinal cord stimulator, which had been recommended by an authorized treating physician.  A DME physician, Dr. Chen, opined that the continuing back problems of claimant were not causally related to his work activities.  Claimant filed for alternate medical care and the action was dismissed under section 85.27 and 876 Iowa Administrative Code 4.48 because of defendants' denial of liability.  Claimant asked for rehearing, arguing that the issue of liability had already been established in the initial administrative proceeding.  This request was denied.  A contested case proceeding was initiated by claimant, who argued that the continuing back problems were related to the work injury and further alleged that he was entitled to the SCS trial.  The deputy found that...

Dotts v. City of Des Moines , No. 20-0954 (Iowa App. July 21,  2021) - In this somewhat unusual alternate medical care case, claimant filed for alternate medical care under 85.27 and was denied such care by the agency.  Claimant appealed and on judicial review, the district court considered the record, which did not include a transcript of the agency hearing.  The Court of Appeals noted that they also did not have a transcript of the agency hearing to decide whether substantial evidence supported the decision of the agency. The court notes that the reasonableness of the care provided by defendant was contingent on claimant's testimony that the doctor refused to see him and concessions allegedly made by the employer during the hearing.  Because the court did not have a transcript to review, the conclusion was reached that there was no ability to review the testimony to determine whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.  The court notes tha...

In Lovan v. Broadlawns Medical Center , No. 19-0511 (Iowa App. April 1, 2020), the agency denied claimant's application for alternate medical care following a telephonic hearing. On judicial review, the district court found that the decision of the treating physician was so contrary to all previous medical testimony that it rises to the level of the employer choosing improper care for the employee. On appeal, the court notes that although exhibits were present in the record, there was no transcript or recording of the AMC hearing provided to either the district court or court of appeals.  The court concludes that since claimant's own words as to the reason for dissatisfaction with the care provided was essential, the court could not adequately review the record.  The court rejected a claim that it was standard practice not to provide the transcript, finding that other AMC cases before the courts had apparently produced a transcript or record of the hearing.  With no ...

Claimant was originally found to have suffered a 40% industrial disability following the arbitration hearing.  On appeal, the commissioner's designee concluded that the appropriate level of disability was 25%.  The reviewing deputy also reversed an award of alternate medical care and penalty benefits by the hearing deputy.  In Harrod v. Advance Services Inc., No. 19-0169 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2020), the Court of Appeals affirms the appeal decision. Claimant suffered shoulder and neck injuries at work.  The treating doctor provided treatment for the shoulder injury, but not the neck injury.  Claimant sought alternate medical care, which was denied by defendants.  The hearing deputy concluded claimant had suffered a 40% industrial disability and also found that alternative care was appropriate because claimant was still in pain and the treating doctor did not treat spinal injuries.  A penalty of $4500 was awarded for failure to pay benefits in a timel...

In Harris Steel Group v. Botkin , No. 19-0015 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2020), claimant was awarded alternate medical care in the face of defendants' contention that the application should not have been granted because the employee refused to attend a defense medical evaluation.  The court affirms the award of alternate medical care. Claimant suffered a shoulder injury, as a result of which surgery was ultimately performed.  Problems recurred and claimant attempted to obtain care with the treating physician two years after the surgery.  The doctor indicated that claimant should determine from the employer whether they would authorize the care.  Claimant was scheduled for an evaluation by the defendant, but refused to attend.  Subsequently, the employer failed to respond to claimant's written request to authorize care.   The agency concluded that defendant could not interfere with treatment by Dr. Mendel and concluded that further treatment with Dr. M...

In Huff v. CRST Expedited , No. 18-0336 (Iowa App. March 6, 2019), the court addressed an alternate medical care dispute and remanded the claim to the agency for a determination of certain facts relating to claimant's access to certain appliances and services.  The court concludes that the absence of medical evidence is not a bright line bar to an award of alternate medical care, but finds the agency must  make further factual findings. Claimant had a catastrophic accident, rendering him wheelchair bound.  Following his accident, he lived with his son in a second floor apartment, but ultimately requested ADA compliant living arrangement, a handicap van and a home healthcare provider.  The agency initially denied the alternate medical care application because claimant had not presented medical support for his alternate care requests.  Claimant later filed a second alternate medical care request, which contained an assessment from the Area Agency on Aging relati...

In Penny v. Whirlpool , No. 16-0495 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2017), the agency had denied claimant's request for alternate medical care with a neurosurgeon, finding that the care provided to claimant by the employer had not been unreasonable.  The Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the agency. Claimant had been seen by Dr. Matos and Dr. Abernathey.  Dr. Abernathey did not believe surgery was indicated, but claimant's pain persisted.  The employer set up additional testing to determine claimant's radicular symptoms, but claimant did not attend the appointments under the believe that Whirlpool did not consider his back injury to be work related. Claimant then sought care with a neurosurgeon.  The deputy concluded that since the employer had authorized care with two doctors, as well as authorized an MRI, physical therapy, acupuncture, an EMG and treatment at a pain clinic, the care authorized was not unreasonable.  The district court affirmed. On appeal to the ...

In Westling v. Hormel Foods Corporation, No. 16-0236 (Iowa App. Jan. 11, 2017), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the deputy denying claimant treatment for his right knee.  The authorized provider had indicated that claimant wait until he had "more trouble" before considering revision of claimant's total knee replacement.  The deputy concluded that claimant failed to show the services provided by the doctor were unreasonable. Claimant had originally seen Dr. Crane, but following one of his surgeries, he developed a DVT and opted to have knee replacement surgery with Dr. Wolbrink.   When he began to have further difficulties, he sought treatment with Dr. Alvine, but the employer instead approved care with Dr. Crane again.  Dr. Crane evaluated claimant's knee (claimant alleged this took only five minutes), concluded that a revision of the total knee surgery was not necessary and indicated that claimant should wait.  Claimant expressed dissatisfaction...

In Newt Marine Service v. Abitz , No. 15-1957 (Iowa App. July 27, 2016), the Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's award of alternate medical care.  Claimant had been treated by Dr. Field, who reported that claimant's shoulder injury had abated following surgery and that he had a 75 pound lifting restriction.  Claimant denied that his shoulder pain had dissipated and indicated he continued to need physical therapy.  He also denied that he could lift 75 pounds. A week after the imposition of the 75 pound restriction, Dr. Field indicated claimant had no restrictions. Claimant indicated his dissatisfaction with Dr. Field's care and file a petition for alternate medical care.  He requested care from a doctor specializing in shoulder injuries at the University of Iowa.  The deputy granted alternate care, finding that the care provided by Dr. Field was not effective.  On review, the Court of Appeals affirmed, citing Pirelli-Armstrong Tire Co. v. Reynolds...

In Annett Holdings v. Roland, No. 15-0043 (Iowa App. Feb. 10, 2016), the Court of Appeals upheld a decision of the agency awarding claimant physical therapy in his home state of Alabama rather than the physical therapy that had been offered in Des Moines.  When claimant had begun work for Annett Holdings, he signed a "memorandum of understanding" indicating that as a condition of employment, he agreed to temporarily relocate to Des Moines for the purposes of performing modified work if he were injured on the job.  Claimant had an elbow injury, and surgery in Alabama, following which he was taken off work and referred for physical therapy, which originally occurred in Alabama. When claimant was released to light duty work, he was temporarily relocated to a Des Moines hotel, where physical therapy was performed.  Claimant filed for alternate medical care and the agency concluded that treatment provided 897 miles from claimant's residence was unreasonable and unduly inconv...

A series of commissioners has held that when an authorized treating physician recommends treatment that treatment is deemed to be authorized under 85.27(4) of the Iowa Code.  In Lynch Livestock v. Bursell, No. 14-1133 (Iowa App. May 20, 2015), the Iowa Court of Appeals turns this longstanding agency rule on its head and concludes that in the context of an alternate medical care proceeding, the claimant must demonstrate that the care offered by the employer is unreasonable, notwithstanding that the care sought is recommended by the authorized treating physician.  The decision of the court of appeals could well sound the death knell of a large portion of alternate medical care proceedings by destroying the authorized physician rule. In Mr. Bursell's case, Dr. Cook, an authorized treating physician, diagnosed claimant with CRPS and referred him to Dr. Kelly, a vascular surgeon.  Dr. Kelly recommended a lumbar sympathectomy.  Defendants subsequently sent claimant to ot...

This case represents the fourth time the appellate court has ruled in Millenkamp v. Millenkamp Cattle Co. , No. 14-0732 (Iowa App. April 22, 2015).  In this iteration of the case, the court addresses an issue of alternate medical care, where claimant urges authorization of Dr. Neiman, the neurologist of his choice.  The court describes this proceeding as "virtually identical" to a 2013 ruling by the court denying alternate medical care. Claimant challenged the employer's refusal to authorize care with Dr. Neiman and the employer's authorization of Dr. Cullen.  The agency noted that claimant had failed to notify the employer of his original neurologist's retirement, his decision to begin treating with Dr. Neiman and his refusal to treat with Dr. Cullen. The agency concluded that claimant sought care with Dr. Neiman not because Dr. Neiman could provide better care, but simply because he wanted to choose his own doctor. The court found the agency's findings w...

The Court of Appeals in NID, Inc. v. Monahan, No. 14-0292 (Iowa App. March 25, 2015) grappled with questions of res judicata and judicial estoppel in the context of an alternate medical care proceeding.  The court concluded that res judicata and judicial estoppel did not apply and refused to enter sanctions against the defendants for their failure to provide care. The court begins by noting that the proceeding was "unnecessarily Dickensian in duration and procedural complexity."  Claimant had suffered an injury to his shoulder in 2007 and received treatment for that injury.  He filed a petition almost two years after the injury and at hearing the parties stipulated that claimant had suffered an injury that arose out of his employment.  The parties disputed whether claimant's medical expenses were connected to the injury.  After the arbitration hearing but before decision, claimant treated, on his own, with Dr. Neff, who recommended surgery for the left shoulde...

Hoyt v. Wendling Quarries , No. 14-0800 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015), presented the interesting question of whether section 85.27 of the Code required or allowed for payment for counseling for the spouse of the injured worker, when that counseling was recommended by an authorized treater for the claimant.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded, as had the agency, that section 85.27, did not require payment for such treatment by the employer. Claimant suffered severe physical injuries while working, and subsequently developed depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and dementia.  He was ultimately found permanently and totally disabled, and that decision was not a part of the case before the Court of Appeals.  During claimant's treatment for his injury, Dr. Michael March, the authorized mental health provider, recommended that claimant and his wife engage in individualized counseling. Claimant's wife was his primary caretaker and Dr. March stated that she w...

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Plummer , No. 14-0417 (Iowa App. Jan. 28, 2015), the court addressed an issue involving an employee who was admittedly off the clock when he suffered his injury, but who was assisting customers at the store at which he worked.  On the date of the injury, claimant had completed his shift clocked out and was shopping at the store.  When he was leaving, he and a co-worked assisted a customer.  While providing assistance, claimant slipped and fell.  He subsequently completed an incident report designed for customers rather than employees. The deputy concluded that because claimant was no longer on the clock, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  On appeal, the court indicates that the commissioner did not specifically address the "off the clock" finding, but examined the causal connection between the fall and the subsequent medical treatment. The commissioner found that the visit to the physician four days af...