Iowa Workers' Compensation

Blake v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 20-1382 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021) Claimant suffered an injury at work and alleged that she had suffered a first injury in the form of eye problems.  Claimant suffered from Graves disease, and the question in the case was whether she had suffered a qualifying first injury.  The commissioner found that claimant's eye problems were not a qualifying first injury   and dismissed the claim against the Fund.  Claimant appeals. Claimant argued that under Gregory , claimant's eye problems were a permanent disability and thus a qualifying injury.  The court found that Gregory   was inapplicable because in that case an earlier hand injury combined with injuries to other unenumerated body parts was before the court whereas in Blake , the condition was an unenumerated condition leading to problems with a scheduled member, in this case, the eye.   The court noted that in Nelson , the court had noted that an injury...

In Huffey v. Second Injury Fund and Mail Contractors of America, No. 18-2055 (Iowa App. April 2, 2020), the court held, among other things, that claimant did not need to produce medical records concerning the first injury in order to establish a loss or loss of use under section 85.64 in SIF cases.  This action affirmed the decision of the district court, which had reversed the action of the agency. Claimant brought an initial action against the employer.  The commissioner found that claimant had established a 2% injury to the right knee in 2011, but denied that claimant had a sequela injury to the left knee as a result of the right knee injury.  Claimant subsequently filed an action for a 2012 for a left knee injury.  The deputy awarded a 50% impairment for the left knee, which was reversed by the commissioner.  Claimant's SIF claim was for a right arm injury in 1999 and right knee injury in 2011.  Despite these allegations, the agency treated the ri...

In Hennigar v. Second Injury Fund , No 09-0343 (Iowa App. Jan. 20, 2011), the court concluded that claimant had failed to establish a first injury, and had also failed to demonstrate a second injury, leading to a denial of Second Injury Fund benefits.  The commissioner had earlier denied Fund benefits. Claimant had an eye condition which she alleged as a first injury.  Three doctors had concluded that there was no permanent impairment as a result of the eye injury, and a fourth doctor, who had originally concluded that there was a 1% impairment, recanted this opinion when deposed.  Claimant presented the testimony of herself and her daughter, both of whom testified that claimant had watering in her eye, and her vision had deteriorated.  Testimony was also presented that claimant had difficulty driving. The commissioner concluded that claimant's eye condition did not result in a permanent disability and loss of use to either eye.  Because there was no loss of...