Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Streit v. Streit Construction, No. 19-0615 (Iowa App. Nov. 4, 2020), claimant alleged that the MRSA from which he suffered occurred as a result of cuts and bruises he had suffered at work.  Claimant was originally found to have sustained a work injury as a result of the cuts and scrapes he suffered at work.  The commissioner reversed, concluding that the medical evidence demonstrated that claimant had not demonstrated an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.  On judicial review, the court concluded that the agency had applied the standards for occupational disease under Chapter 85A rather than the standard for other injuries under Chapter 85.  According to the court, claimant did not need to demonstrate that exposure to harmful conditions at work led to the MRSA diagnosis. On remand, the commissioner affirmed, finding that the MRSA condition did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  The commissioner noted that there was no eviden...

In Lewis v. Windsor Windows and Doors , No. 19-0576 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2020), the deputy concluded that claimant lacked credibility and further found that claimant failed to demonstrate an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.  The decision was affirmed by the commissioner. On appeal, the court notes that the commissioner had given deference to the fact finding of the deputy with regard to credibility.  The court defers to the credibility findings of the agency and notes that the job of the court is not to weigh the evidence but to determine whether substantial evidence supports the findings.  The court also noted that the commissioner's decision was sufficiently detailed to show the path taken through the conflicting evidence.  Finding substantial evidence to support the conclusions of the agency, the court affirms.

Claimant alleged that he suffered an injury to his knee while gassing up his truck and argues that the commissioner ignored uncontested expert testimony in concluding that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  In Swanson v. A.V. Transportation , No. 17-1127 (Iowa App. May 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals affirms the denial of benefits on substantial evidence grounds. Claimant was an over the road truck driver, who was gassing up his truck on ice covered ground when he slipped, did the splits and felt pain in his right knee.  Claimant did not initially report the injury, but later reported it, indicating this had happened on February 14.  He later amended that to February 15, and finally to February 7.  The claim was initially accepted and an MRI showed a meniscal tear.  The knee was repaired.  An IME, by Dr. Milas found that the knee injury resulted from work related activities, and was based on claimant's account of th...

Numerous cases on this blog have discussed situations in which the decision of the agency was affirmed on substantial evidence grounds.  In Estate of Herman v. Overhead Door Co. of Des Moines, No. 12-0892 (Iowa App. May 15, 2013), the court concludes that because there was no substantial evidence to support the agency's decision that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment, claimant (or claimant's estate, since claimant died before this decision) was entitled to benefits.  The court concluded that: "because we find the commissioner’s outright rejection of uncontroverted medical opinions is not supported by substantial evidence when the record is viewed as a whole, and we find Herman’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment as a matter of law, we reverse and remand." Claimant worked in an unheated warehouse, and there was really little dispute that claimant worked in subfreezing temperatures in the winter of 2009, ...

In AARP v. Whitacre , No. 12-1519 (Iowa App. May 15, 2013), claimant was a 79 year old part time janitor for AARP.  While on a coffee break one day, claimant began to choke, stood up to get a drink of water, stumbled and fell, causing injuries to his head and face.  The deputy and commissioner found that this injury arose out of his employment and awarded benefits.  On judicial review, the district court reversed. In addressing the question, the court noted that the earlier decision in Lakeside Casino v. Blue , 743 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2007) had indicated that the arising out of test involved proof that a causal connection existed between the conditions of the employment and the injury. The COA also noted that earlier decisions of the Supreme Court were to the effect that risks that were personal to the employee were not compensable, but further noted that Lakeside Casino  and other cases had indicated that the work risk need be no greater than risks outside the workpl...

In Cooper v. Kirkwood Community College , No. 11-1755 (Iowa App. Feb. 13, 2013), the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner that claimant's injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.  The case had been before the Court of Appeals previously, at which time the court concluded that claimant was required to wait until the agency had made a determination on rehearing before filing a petition for judicial review.  When a subsequent petition was filed, the district court concluded that the petition had been timely filed, but found that claimant's conditions did not arise out of her employment. Defendants first argued that because the second petition for judicial review was filed until after the dismissal of the first petition, it had been untimely filed.  The court disagreed, and indicated that because of the earlier interlocutory appeal, the 20 day "deemed denied" period for the rehearing was tolled pending the decision of the district court and...

In O'Reilly Auto Parts v. Alexander , No. 11-1864 (Iowa App. Oct. 31, 2012), the court addressed two issues.  The first was whether claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment.  The second was whether the commissioner had erred in sua sponte entering an insurance carrier into the proceedings.  The court affirmed on both counts. Claimant contended he had suffered a back injury while unloading a tote from a truck and twisting his body to take a step.  Injury reports did not reflect the date of injury actually claimed in the action.  Claimant was not sent to see the company doctor, and did not initially explain the mechanism of injury to his family doctor.  Dr. Ray concluded that claimant had sustained a worsening of pain from the work accident.  Claimant subsequently had a stroke and explained at hearing that he had problems with memory.  The claim was denied by the deputy but the commissioner reversed and concluded that claima...

The court in Villafana v. Blackhawk Foundry , No. 11-1781 (Iowa App. June 27, 2012) found that the commissioner's conclusion that claimant's injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment was supported by substantial evidence.  Claimant's condition (carpal tunnel and neck problems) was originally found work related by Dr. Frederick, but she later concluded that these conditions were not related to work, but were related to earlier injuries sustained by claimant.  Dr. Milas, a neurosurgeon, indicated that he believed the injuries were related to work, although he noted that claimant was a poor historian. At the hearing level, Dr. Frederick's opinions were credited over those of Dr. Milas because it was unclear what records Dr. Milas had reviewed in reaching his conclusions.  The opinions of the deputy were affirmed without further comment.  The COA initially addresses a question of whether claimant preserved error, as he did not point to any cases in...