Iowa Workers' Compensation

Loew v. Menard, Inc. , No. 22-1894 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a low back injury resulting in a 20% functional impairment and a resulting 30% award of industrial disability.  Claimant suffered a second work-related back injury, which was compensated functionally as he continued to work for the employer earning wages in excess of those at the time of the injury.  As a result of the second award, claimant was found to have a 28% functional disability.  The commissioner concluded that the employer was not required to pay additional benefits for the second injury, as the employer received a credit for the 30% award that had previously been paid, which was in excess of the 28% functional award.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.  The Supreme Court accepted review of the claim. The Court first notes that Iowa's worker's is statutorily based and that the statute is "liberally construe[d] . . .in claimant's favor to effectuate the statut...

P.M. Lattner Manufacturing Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a right shoulder injury in 2009, which ultimately resulted in a commutation settlement for 29.6% of the body as a whole.  Claimant subsequently suffered another injury to the right shoulder in 2018, following changes to the Code which made shoulder injuries unscheduled.  At hearing, claimant was awarded a 19% functional impairment for the injury to his right shoulder.  The employer argued that the entire award should be credited given that the earlier commutation resulted in a greater award than the second right shoulder injury.  The commissioner rejected this argument, but noted that defendants could arguably be entitled to a credit for the functional portion of the injury.  In this case, however, defendants failed to prove the amount of the credit and thus no credit was awarded. A secondary issue was also presented regarding payment of the IME.  The commissioner awa...

Newton Community School District v. Hubbard-McKinney , No. 22-0030 (Iowa App. Feb. 22, 2023) In this claim, Ms. Hubbard-McKinney suffered an injury to her leg, which resulted in a 9% impairment.  The parties also agreed that of the 9% impairment, 7% of the 9% was attributable to a preexisting condition and 2% was directly caused by the fall at work.  Defendants argued that it was not responsible for that portion of the disability relating to the preexisting condition.  The commissioner rejected this argument and awarded claimant the entire 9% impairment. The Court indicated that the issue was one of apportionment and noted that the pre-2017 case of Warren Props. v. Stewart , 864 N.W.2d 307, 315 (Iowa 2015) referred to 85.34(7) as a rule of apportionment. On appeal, the employer relied on the language in 85.34(7) that an "employer is not liable for compensating an employee's preexisting disability that arose out of an in the course of employment . . . from causes unrelated...

Knaeble v. John Deere Dubuque Works , No. 21-1934 (Iowa App. Nov. 17, 2022) Claimant suffered three injuries while working for John Deere - one to his right leg and left foot in 2014, a second to his hands and finger in 2017 and a third to his shoulder in 2017.  On the 2014 petition, claimant was awarded a 30% industrial award.  A second petition against the Fund was consolidated with the third petition against the employer.  The deputy concluded that claimant had an 85% industrial loss for the first and second injuries and that the industrial loss for the third injury was 5%.  The deputy determined that the industrial disability for all three injuries was 92%.  The commissioner affirmed the 85% industrial loss.  Contrary to the decision of the deputy, however, the commissioner found that the employer only owed 5% industrial disability due to the shoulder injury.  The deputy found that Deere was responsible for a combined industrial disability of 35% (...

The passage of HF 2581 in 2004 eliminated the provision that overlapping streams of benefits were impermissible under section 85.36(9)(c) of the Code.   In Drake University v. Davis , 769 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 2009), the Supreme Court held that in a situation where a claimant had a PPD award followed by a subsequent award of PTD benefits, both benefits could be received simultaneously, because the language of section 85.34(7) of the Code, which addressed issues of apportionment, did not reference awards under section 85.34(3) of the Code, only awards under section 85.34(2). In JBS Swift v. Ochoa, No. 15-0840 (Iowa App. May 25, 2016), the Court of Appeals followed Davis  and affirmed the commissioner's award of an overlapping 70% industrial disability and a subsequent PTD award.  The court noted that the awards were both supported by substantial evidence and indicated, in discussing Davis , that "we are not at liberty to overrule controlling supreme court precedent." ...

In Polaris Industries v. Hesby , No. 15-0629 (Iowa App. Feb. 10, 2016), the Court of Appeals addressed the issue of whether the defendant had presented sufficient evidence to justify a credit for prior injuries that occurred to claimant while working with the same employer.  The agency had concluded that no satisfaction of the employer's obligations was due because the employer failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify the credit.  The district court reversed, finding that claimant had acknowledged payment of at least 30 weeks of benefits and also noting that a prior hip injury had also resulted in payment of industrial disability. On appeal, the court remanded, finding that the agency's conclusion that claimant had not received permanency benefits was not supported by substantial evidence.  The court also remanded for consideration of payments made for claimant's 2009 hip injury, which had not all been paid out at the time of the decision in this case, which inv...

In Roberts Dairy v. Billick , 861 N.W.2d 814 (Iowa 2015), the Supreme Court held that when a claimant has a first compensable injury with one employer, and later has a second compensable claim with a different employer, the fresh start rule applies with the change of employment and the second claim is not apportioned against the first injury.  In that case, the court concluded that "because Billick gained a fresh start when he began his employment with Roberts in 2001, Roberts is not entitled to apportion its liability for permanent partial disability benefits in this case."   Id.  at 825. In Warren Properties v. Stewart , No. 13-0474 (Iowa May 29, 2015), the court was presented with similar arguments concerning apportionment, with the exception that claimant suffered her first injury while working at Wal-Mart concurrently with her employment at Warren Properties.  Claimant subsequently left her job at Wal-Mart following her back injury, but continued to work at Wa...

In Roberts Dairy v. Billick , No. 13-1009 (Iowa April 3, 2015), the Supreme Court for the first time addressed the meaning of the apportionment provisions of section 85.34(7) of the Iowa Code and concluded that in a situation where an employee has an injury with one employer, and later has an injury with a different employer, apportionment does not apply. Claimant had a back injury in 1985 which resulted in the assessment of an 85% industrial disability in an agreement for settlement.  Claimant was able to get back to work and had another injury in 1993, resulting in injuries to his head, neck, left shoulder, ribs, back and left arm.  This was settled on an agreement for settlement under Missouri law for 18.5%.  Claimant began working for Roberts Dairy in 2001.  He suffered an ankle injury in 2004; injuries to his head, neck and left shoulder in 2004; a thoracic compression fracture in 2006; and a chest/shoulder injury which also caused emotional trauma in 2007. ...

Following the passage of section 85.34(7), the constitutionality of the bill (HF 2581) of which that provision as a part was challenged in the case of Godfrey v. State of Iowa , 752 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2008). http://www.iowacourts.gov/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20080620/05-1691.pdf . In Godfrey , the court found that the claimant lacked standing to challenge the provisions of the bill, and therefore did not rule on the constitutionality of that provision. More recently, the constitutionality of the bill of which the apportionment language was a part was again challenged, in Quaker Oats v. Main , 2010 WL 200420, No. 08-1507 (Iowa App. Jan. 22, 2010). http://www.iowacourts.gov/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20100122/9-896.pdf . In Main , the court found that the claimant's constitutional challenge was not filed in a timely manner, and hence could not be heard by the court. The court indicated that since the challenge had not been filed before HF 2581 was codified in January of...

A recent decision addressing §85.34(7) of the Code has been issued.  In Quaker Oats v. Main , No. 08-1507 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan 22, 2010), 2010 WL 200420, the Court of Appeals addressed two issues regarding the apportionment section of the workers’ compensation law.  The court found that §85.34(7) applied to successive injuries with the same employer as long as one of the injuries occurred after September 7, 2004, the effective date of the legislation.  The commissioner had earlier ruled in Main that both injuries had to take place after September 7, 2004 in order for the legislation to apply, but the district court reversed this finding, and this conclusion was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. The Main court also addressed the issue of the constitutionality of the provisions of House File 2581 that resulted in the legislation codified as §85.34(7).  The legislation had been attacked as being violative of the single subject provisions of the Iowa Constitution, Art. ...