Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Taylor v. Gazette Communications , No. 19-1611 (Iowa App. June 17, 2020), plaintiff was placed by a Labor broker (Aerotek) into employment with Gazette.  Plaintiff was injured at employment and filed a workers compensation claim against the employer.  Plaintiff also filed a negligence claim against the employer.  The district court granted summary judgment to defendant based on an exculpatory provision in the labor broker agreement providing that no negligence claim could be undertaken and that an injured worker would be limited to workers compensation remedies.  The 85.20 summary judgment claim was not reached because there were factual issues precluding summary judgment.  The Court of Appeals affirms the decision finding that the exculpatory clause was preclusive of a negligence actions.  The court concludes that Aerotek had not made specific promises of a safe working environment.  The court also found that the 85.20 issue need not be reached. ...

Mullen v. Grettenberg , No. 14-1699 (Iowa App. Oct. 14, 2015), involved a situation where an employee of a grain elevator (Mullen) died as a result of an accident in a grain bin.  Grettenberg was the sole proprietor of the business and was also alleged to be a supervisor and co-employee.  Mullen's estate argued that because Grettenberg was a co-employee and supervisor, the workers' compensation statute was not the exclusive remedy for recovery under section 85.20 of the statute.  Grettenberg argued that he was the employer, and thus the exclusive remedy was under the workers' compensation statute. The district court ruled in favor of Grettenberg, finding that a sole proprietor who works alongside his employee should be deemed an employer for purposes of a gross negligence statute.   See Henrich v. Lorenz , 448 N.W.2d 327, 331 (Iowa 1989);   Tigges v. City of Ames , 356 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Iowa 1984). The court found that the district court had correctly addressed...

Thompson v. ATI Products, Inc., No. 14-1765 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), involved a situation where plaintiff was hired by an employment broker, Aventure Staffing and Professional Services, who placed him at ATI, where he was seriously injured on the first day of work.  Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim against Aventure and was provided with benefits.  He also filed suit against ATI for negligence.  ATI moved for summary judgment, claiming it was a "special employer" as a matter of law and arguing that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Iowa Code, section 85.20, barred the negligence action.  The district court found that no issue of material fact existed and granted summary judgment, finding that an implied contract of employment had been created that that Thompson's action was barred. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that in a "borrowed servant" situation such as this, the primary focus was whether the parties intended that an employment situati...

The court, in Kelly v. Riser, Inc. , No. 11-1898 (Iowa App. Oct. 31, 2012) addressed a question of an employee of a temporary workers' agency, who recovered benefits for an injury from the workers' compensation carrier, could also proceed against the property owner, general contractor and subcontractor.  The court concluded that there was no right of recovery in tort against parties other than the employer, and that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy available to the claimant.  Claimant worked for Labor Ready, a temporary employment contractor, and was assigned to dismantle and install a new bleacher system for Bettendorf High School.  He was injured on the job.  The contract between claimant and Labor Ready indicated that the exclusive means of recovery for an injury was through workers' compensation.  Following the injury, claimant received workers' compensation benefits, but later sued over parties in tort.  The district court, on summary j...

In Estate of Brehm v. Dubuque Community School District , No. 12-0176 (Iowa App. Oct. 3, 2012), the court of appeals addressed the issue of exclusive remedy in the death benefits case.  Claimant had died while performing one of two full time jobs, and under the provisions of the workers' compensation statute, was paid benefits based only on the wages earned on that full time job.  Claimant's estate argued that this remedy wasn't adequate, and that therefore the workers' compensation statute should not have been the exclusive remedy in the case. Because the damages arose from a work related injury, and the employer had paid the damages owed under the workers' compensation act, the court concluded that the remedy was adequate and affirmed the decision of the district court.  The court noted that in situations where there was not an adequate remedy, claims may fall outside of the exclusive remedy provisions, but found that this was not such a case.  The court conclud...