Iowa Workers' Compensation

  H.J. Heinz Co. v. Tilton , No. 24-0236 (Iowa App. Dec. 18, 2024) In this action, which had previously been before the Court of Appeals twice, the Court affirms a decision finding that the date of discovery of the injury was April 15, 2013, that the filing of the action was timely and that claimant was permanently and totally disabled based on aggravations of her back and mental conditions. Claimant had a long history of treatment for back problems, beginning in 2000, approximately a year after she began working for the employer.  She continued to treat for the injury throughout the years and in 2010 her chiropractor indicated that her disc bulges and bone spurs were permanent and could cause her to miss work, but also finding she was not currently incpacitated.  Claimant received a great deal of treatment in 2010 and left the employer on April 13, 2013 on disability.  At hearing, medical testimony indicated that claimant's work had been a substantial contributing f...

Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats , No 23-0393 (Iowa App Feb. 7, 2024)  Claimant retired on October 31, 2018 and notified his employer of an alleged cumulative back injury on October 22, 2019.  The commissioner concluded that the claim was barred by section 85.23, as claimant had not notified the employer of his injury in a timely manner.  Claimant's discovery rule argument was rejected,  The district court also rejected the argument. At the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the the commissioner erred by not making separate determinations as to when claimant knew the nature, seriousness and compensable character of his injury.  The Court notes this argument, but indicates that following the appeal, the Supreme Court had issued its decision in Tweeten v. Tweeten , 2023 WL 8853036 (Iowa 2023).  The Court concluded that under Tweeten , the issue of whether the application of the discovery rule applied to only one or all three of the elements of the discovery rul...

Tweeten dba Tweeten Farms v. Tweeten , 999 N.W.2d 270 (Iowa Dec. 22, 2023) In this action reviewing the district court decision, three issues were presented: Does the statutory bar under section 85.39(9) of the Code preclude further benefits following a compromise settlement between claimant and the Second Injury Fund? Does the discovery rule toll the statute of limitations following amendments to section 85.26(1) of the Iowa Code? How do amendments to section 85.39(2) of the Code affect reimbursement for independent medical exams?           The Supreme Court concluded that a compromise settlement with the Fund does not bar an action against the employer.  The Court further finds that, in actions based on a traumatic event, the legislative changes to 85.26(1) made in 2017 effectively eliminates the discovery rule.  Because of the decision on this third issue, the final issue concerning independent medical evaluations was not re...

  Tilton v. H.J. Heinz Company , No. 21-1777 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) In a prior proceeding, the Court of Appeals remanded claimant's case to the commissioner for a redetermination of the date claimant knew or should have known her back injury would have a permanent adverse impact on claimant's employment.  The court concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant knew of the permanent adverse impact on September 8, 2010 was not supported by substantial evidence. On remand, the deputy concluded claimant should have known her injury had a permanent adverse impact on her employment on February 4, 2010, based on a chiropractor's report that her injury was permanent and taking her off work for two to four weeks.  The deputy concluded the claim was barred under section 85.23.  On judicial review, the district court reversed, finding that as claimant did not have a doctor's note giving her permanent restrictions on September 8, 2010, she could not have had notice...

  City of Harlan v. Thygesen , No. 21-0265 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022) In this hearing loss case, claimant suffered a hearing loss some ten years prior to the time claimant filed his claim and knew that his injury was work-related.  Claimant alleged that despite these facts, the statute did not begin to run on his claim until either 2014 (when he was provided with audiogram results) or 2015 (the date assigned by the employer because he did not appreciate the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury until those dates.  Defendants alleged that claimant failed to timely notify them of the claim and failed to timely file the claim. The commissioner found that claimant, despite being aware of hearing loss and the fact that the hearing loss was caused by employment, did not appreciate the severity of the claim, crediting the testimony of claimant.  The district court reversed and found that claimant knew the nature, seriousness and probable compe...

In Romero v. Curly's Foods , No. 18-2066 (Iowa App. Nov. 6, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a claim on notice grounds.  Claimant had alleged a cumulative injury and urged that she did not appreciate the permanent impact on employment until just before she notified defendants of the injury.  The commissioner concluded that claimant realized that the injury was work related and serious in May of 2013 because she argued she reported the injury to defendants at that time.  Defendants argued that notification had not occurred until 2014.  On the facts of the case, the commissioner concluded that claimant had not notified defendants in a timely manner.  The commissioner also noted that this was a fact specific finding, applicable only to this case.   Rather than delve into the question of when claimant appreciated that the injury would have a permanent impact on employment, the court finds that the commissioner's findings were supp...

In Ruiz v. Revstone Casting Industries, LLC , No. 16-1728 (Iowa App. Dec. 6, 2017), the court affirmed the decision of the agency that claimant had not provided sufficient notice of his hearing loss, back and hand  claims and affirmed the district court's order remanding claimant's back injury claim to the commissioner. Claimant worked for the employer as a grinder for 25 years. He began to feel he had a right to "something" from his injuries after he was prescribed hearing aids.  Claimant noted that he had made doctors' appointments on his own for his hands.  Claimant ultimately retired from Revstone in 2011 because of the pain in his foot, hands and back in addition to his hearing loss.  With respect to the carpal tunnel claim, the commissioner failed to specify a date of injury for the claim.  The court indicates that the carpal tunnel claim was a cumulative injury requiring application of the standard under Oscar Meyer Foods Corp. v. Tasler  which i...

In Myers v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons , No. 17-0306 (Iowa App. Sept. 13, 2017), the Court of Appeals upheld a decision of the agency concluding that claimant's petition was untimely and was not saved by the discovery rule.   Claimant was employed by Donnelly as a press operator until 2011, when he was moved to another position because he could not longer perform the duties of a press operator as a result of back problems.  The back problems had begun in 1999.  The agency concluded that claimant knew his back problems were related to his work by 2009.  On November 2012, claimant received permanent restrictions of no lifting of more than 40 pounds and was terminated because the employer could not accommodate his work restrictions.  Claimant filed a petition on April 2, 2013. The agency concluded that claimant's injury date was 2/25/09, when claimant's doctor diagnosed him with disabling mechanical back pain and referred him to his surgeon.  The deputy f...

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner dismissing claimant's case on grounds of lack of notice and statute of limitations.   Ross v. American Ordnance , No. 16-0787 (Iowa App. Jan. 11, 2017). Claimant hurt her shoulder on November 1, 2012 and told her supervisor about this injury.  She was asked whether she needed to see a doctor but claimant indicated she was not hurt that bad.  She did not fill out an injury report.  She continued to have problems with her shoulder and saw a doctor for a cortisone injection on January 11, 2013.  An incident report was made on March 14, 2013 and claimant was diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear and later had surgery. At hearing, claimant testified that she told her supervisor she had hurt her shoulder.  The supervisor testified that claimant told him her shoulder "hurts a little bit."  He was not sure claimant was relating her injury to work and did not ask whether she was injured while worki...

In Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, No. 14-2062 (Iowa Dec. 18, 2015), the Court confirmed that the discovery rule applied to traumatic injury cases as well as cumulative injury cases.  The commissioner had ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Clark v. City of Spencer , No. 5017329 (App. Sept. 11, 2007), that the discovery rule did not apply to cases involving traumatic injuries.  On judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the agency and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court. The Court first discussed the purpose and character of the Iowa's workers' compensation system, noting that the costs of a work injury should be borne by the industry itself and not dependent on individual fault or negligence.  The "grand bargain" providing immunity to employers from potentially large tort lawsuits in exchange for a claimant not have to demonstrate negligence was discussed at length, as was the assurance of prompt payments in the...

In Menard, Inc. v. Simmer , No. 14-2078 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed a finding that under the discovery rule, claimant had provided timely notice of his injury. As a part of his work with Menard's, claimant was required to carry goods from the store to customers cars.  These loads weighed up to 300 pounds.  In 2008 and 2009, claimant began to experience pain in his feet and up to his thighs while working.  By April of 2010, pain had spread to claimant's lower back, and claimant's physician referred him to the Minnesota Back Institute.  In May of 2010, claimant learned for the first time that he had scoliosis.  He was provided with an injection and therapy and returned to Menard's without restriction.  By early 2012, claimant's back problems had worsened and the doctor at Minnesota Back Institute indicated that his employment may have led to his worsening back condition.  He also performed surgery on March 7, 2012. Claima...

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 14-0771 (Iowa App. May 6, 2015), the Court of Appeals addressed issues concerning the date of injury in the context of a cumulative injury, and notice issues associated with the date of injury.  Claimant was awarded benefits by the agency, but the district court concluded that the agency had failed to use the correct legal test in determining the date of the cumulative injury.  The district court remanded the case to the agency and found that the employer was entitled to assert an untimely notice defense on appeal.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the correct legal test was not used, but also finds that the notice defense could not be considered on remand. Claimant had a left shoulder injury and returned to work after that injury.  She began having problems in the right shoulder and saw a nurse practitioner for the problem on June 1, 2010.  Following an MRI, a rotator cuff tear in the right shoulder was als...