Iowa Workers' Compensation

Following the reduction of his salary by the Governor in 2010, former Commissioner Chris Godfrey filed an action against the State of Iowa and various state officials, including the Governor, alleging a variety of legal theories.  In Godfrey v. State of Iowa et al. , No. 15-0695 (Iowa June 30, 2017), the Court ruled, for the first time, that constitutional claims, in this cases allegations of deprivation of property rights without due process of law and deprivation of liberty interests without due process created causes of action directly under the Iowa Constitution. Four counts of the petition were at issue before the court.  Count VI alleged that Godfrey was deprived of his property rights in his salary because of partisan politics and sexual orientation.  Count VII alleged a damage to a protect liberty interest in his reputation without due process by falsely claiming poor work performance.  Count VIII alleged a violation of the equal protection of the laws for ...

Cooksey v. Cargill, Inc., No. 12-1729 (Iowa App. Oct. 2, 2013), is a case in which claimant filed three alternate medical care proceedings against the employer.  In the first two proceedings, the employer agreed to provide the care sought by claimant and that care was provided.  In the first proceeding, a hearing was held, but the parties came to an agreement that claimant could see Dr. Abernathey and claimant would voluntarily dismiss his claim for alternate medical care.  In the second proceeding, claimant voluntarily dismissed before hearing because defendants agreed to provide the care requested.  In the third proceeding, the employer denied liability for the claim, after getting reports from two doctors questioning causation, and the alternate medical care hearing was dismissed under 876 IAC 4/48(7). Claimant, after having the AMC petition dismissed, filed a request for a ruling on the petition, based on due process grounds and judicial estoppel.  The dep...

In Estness v. Prairie Meadows Racetrack & Casino, No. 1-832 (Iowa App. Dec. 7, 2011), the court agreed with the assessment of the commissioner (per Deputy Walleser) that claimant's shoulder injury was not related.  The deputy (Heitland) had initially concluded that the injury was related to repetitious work pushing chairs at Prairie Meadows, and provided a 10% industrial disability finding,  but this conclusion was reversed by the commissioner, who found that claimant did not perform any repetitive work for the employer.  On review, the commissioner's decision was affirmed by the court of appeals. The district court affirmed, and addressed a question raised by the employer of whether the deputy's questioning of the claimant and an employer representative violated due process because the deputy allegedly acted as an advocate for the claimant.  The court found that the employer's due process rights had not been violated.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the de...