Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Hagen v. Serta/National Beddikng, LLC , No. 22-0684 (Iowa Feb. 5, 2024) Claimant failed to timely certify her expert witnesses and also failed to produce the reports of the experts at least thirty days before hearing.  The deputy found that the acceptance of the reports would be unduly prejudicial to the employer and excluded the reports.  The commissioner affirmed this decision, but the district court reversed that decision.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court on appeal and the Supreme Court accepted the case for further review. Under rule 876 IAC 4.19(3), claimant was required to certify experts within 120 days of hearing.  The rule also provides that reports from experts were to be provided within 30 days of hearing.  The rules note that evidence may be excluded "if the objecting party shows that receipt of the evidence would be unfairly prejudicial."  Hearing in the case was set for September 25, 2020. Although claim...

In Hyten v. HNI Corporation, No. 16-1454 (Iowa App. Jan. 10, 2018), the Court of Appeals addressed the exclusion of evidence concerning the delay in receipt of workers' compensation benefits, the safety of plaintiff's work assignment and the company's waiver of notice defense.  The court affirms the exclusion of evidence on all accounts. Plaintiff suffered a carpal tunnel injury.  Partially as a result of that injury, claimant had unexcused absences which ultimately led to her dismissal from employment.  Claimant filed suit against the employer, alleging she had been terminated in violation of public policy for seeking workers' compensation benefits.  After trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the employer. Plaintiff alleged on appeal that the court erred in excluding evidence.  The court notes that relevant evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or mis...

The court in Lull-Gumbusky v. Great Plains Communications , No. 13-1886 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015) addressed a number of issues and affirmed the decision of the commissioner on all issues. The first issue presented to the court involved the exhibits presented by claimant.  The deputy found at hearing that the exhibits did not conform to the format outlined in the hearing report, because they were organized chronologically rather than chronologically by provider.  At hearing, the deputy indicated that the noncompliance would lead to the exclusion of evidence.  Claimant did not conform his exhibits and some of the exhibits were excluded.  The Court of Appeals noted that the agency had broad discretion in oversight and determinations about the admissibility of evidence and affirmed the exclusion of certain evidence. The commissioner found that review reopening was not appropriate because substantial evidence supported the conclusion of the commissioner that the facts...