Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Archer Daniels Midland v. Williams , No. 22-2075 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023)  Claimant had an injury to the shoulder which he claimed extended beyond the shoulder to the body as a whole.  During the course of litigation, the Supreme Court decided Deng and Chavez , which addressed the issues concerning the shoulder that applied in this litigation.  At the district court level, Claimant shifted his approach to indicate that he had suffered a shoulder/arm injury, which should have been treated industrially.  Because Deng and Chavez had not been decided by the courts while claimant's case was being litigated, and this was the only issue raised before the commissioner, no decision was reached by the agency on the shoulder/arm issue. The Court concludes that error was not preserved, as claimant did not pursue the shoulder/arm issue until he reached the district court.  The district court had concluded that claimant preserved the issue because "the parties have ...

City of Maxwell v. Marshall , No. 20-0916 (Iowa App. Oct. 20, 2021)  Claimant suffered an injury while working as a volunteer firefighter for the City of Maxwell.  Claimant had a number of surgeries and sought healing period benefits for the period between January 17, 2015 and April 10, 2017.  The deputy awarded healing period benefits, but denied penalty benefits, finding that the employer was not consistently late in paying weekly benefits.  The commissioner affirmed and both parties filed for judicial review.  On judicial review, defendants requested remand to the commissioner for consideration of additional evidence that was not available at the time of hearing.  This request was denied and the district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.  Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The penalty benefits question centered around claimant's date of injury and the date on which benefits should have started.  Claimant suffered an injury...

 In Annett Holdings, Inc. v. Roberts, No. 20-0155 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the agency found that claimant was eligible for a 30% industrial disability award as well as additional healing period benefits.  The commissioner denied claimant's application for certain prescription medications. The district court affirmed on all three issues.  Defendant appeals on the two issues decided against it. In affirming the agency, the court noted it was the agency's duty to determine the credibility of witnesses, weight the evidence and decide the facts in issue.  On legal issues, the agency was given no deference.  On the healing period issue, defendant argued that the factors of 85.34(1) were not met.  the court disagreed, finding that claimant had not returned to work, was not medically capable of returning to substantially similar work and was not at MMI.  Defendant's argument that claimant's employment did not end and thus he did not meet the criteria for a ...

In a 6-1 decision, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed their earlier ruling in Bell Bros. v. Gwinn , 779 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2010) and held that in order to take advantage of the beneficial care rule, claimant must prove that care that was unauthorized is reasonable and beneficial and provides a more favorable medical outcome than the care authorized by the employer.  Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corp., No. 16-1364 (Iowa June 8, 2018).  The court also concluded that a an employer who initially denies liability of a claim, can later find that the claim is work-related and regain control of the claim, including authorization of medical care.  Finally, the court held that if care is provided to claimant outside of the workers' compensation process, healing period benefits may be lost if claimant does not prove that the care obtained provided a more favorable outcome than that offered by the employer. Claimant suffered carpal tunnel problems, which were thought to be work-related by her i...

In Borkovec v. Dish Network , No. 17-0743 (Iowa App. May 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner which had held that a work injury was the cause of claimant's opioid dependency, but concluding that permanency was not ripe because claimant had not reached the end of his healing period.  The records presented at hearing indicated that if claimant had treatment for his addiction, his function might improve. The  hearing deputy had concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled and the appeal decision changed that to a running healing period.  Following a petition for judicial review, the district court reversed the commissioner's decision and found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  The Court of Appeals reinstates the decision of the commissioner. Claimant was involved in a serious auto accident and was provided  large impairment ratings by the doctors who opined on the issue.  Dr. Kuhnlein c...

In Evenson v. Winnebago Industries, No. 14-2097 (Iowa June 3, 2016), the Supreme Court concluded that an employer's matching contributions to a 401(k) plan are not weekly earnings for rate purposes. The Court also concluded that the district court erred in affirming the date on which the healing period commenced and ended and the date on which PPD benefits commenced. On the rate issue, the court noted that "gross earnings" was defined in section 85.61(9) as recurring payment by the employer before deductions and excluding irregular bonuses, overtime pay, reimbursement of expenses and the employer's contribution for welfare benefits.  The Court notes that although an employee's 401(k) plan is related tangentially to his or her wage or salary, an employer's 401(k) plan matching contributions are based on the employee's choice and contribution.  Although the portion the employee chooses to contribute to the plan comes from his wages, the added contribution ...

In Pettengill v. American Blue Ribbon Holdings, LLC , No. 14-1511 (Iowa App. Dec. 23, 2015), the court dealt with a situation where the commissioner had concluded that penalty benefits were not owed despite the fact that the employer had not contemporaneously conveyed the reasons for the denial of benefits to claimant.  The district court reversed and remanded and the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court. Claimant suffered a back injury, the extent of which was in serious dispute.  Dr. Runde provided initial treatment for the back pain, including physical therapy.  He also provided permanent restrictions for claimant. An MRI demonstrated a disk extrusion at L5-S1.  Dr. Broghammer indicated this was not due to the work injury, Dr. Neiman disagreed and though surgery was necessary.  Dr. Abernathey did not believe surgery was necessary and thought that the injury should have resolved within six weeks. The commissioner concluded that from...

In Eaton Corp. v. Archer, No. 15-0255 (Iowa App. Nov. 12, 2015), the commissioner addressed a claim where claimant developed carpal tunnel syndrome.  There was a dispute concerning causation and a dispute over whether claimant was able to return to substantially similar work.  The commissioner concluded that claimant's injury was related to his work activities, and concluded that claimant could not return to former work, given the continuing pain in his hands. Following the injury, claimant missed work because of the pain in his hands and was discharged by the employer.  On appeal, the primary issue was the healing period issue.  The employer claimed that claimant could return to his former work, and cited their IME physician, Dr. Hsu, in support.  Claimant countered with the IME of Dr. Gammel.  The agency concluded, based on the opinion of Dr. Gammel and claimant's testimony that he could not return to substantially similar work. The district court aff...

Key City Transport, Inc. v. Delire , No. 14-1755 (Iowa App. Sept. 10, 2015), involved a truck driver who was injured a few weeks after the start of his employment.  Claimant indicated that he was told when he was hired that some drivers on the route on which claimant worked earned between $70,000 and $75,000 per year.  Claimant worked three weeks, earning mileage and drop fees (mileage amounts were $257, $1254 and $1425 and drop fees were $155, $40 and $240).  Claimant was injured when he was unloading large windows.  Claimant attempted to catch a falling window and fell on his back and felt a sharp pain in his right armpit and shoulder.  Ultimately, surgery was performed for a labral tear. Following the first surgery, claimant continued to have difficulties and a second shoulder surgery was performed, along with right carpal and cubital tunnel releases.  The treating doctor, Dr. Mendel, continued to be concerned about claimant's symptoms and wished to pe...

The court in Hill Concrete v. Dixson , No. 13-1778 (Iowa App. Oct. 15, 2014), addressed issues of healing period benefits in a review-reopening proceeding.  Defendants argued that healing period benefits can only be awarded on review reopening when the claimant's condition warrants additional benefits under section 86.14(2) rather than when claimant had reached MMI under section 85.34(1).  The court initially concludes that the timeframe for healing period benefits under 85.34(1) applies in review reopening proceedings, Since the decision of the agency finding that MMI had not occurred until May 4, 2012, the award of healing period benefits from July 16, 2010 to May 4 was appropriate. The case had originally been settled by the parties for 55% industrial disability, and claimant subsequently developed pain in his hip resulting in a hip arthroplasty.  Dr. Mahoney took him off work following the arthroplasty, and ultimately found MMI on May 4, 2012.  The agency award...

In Staff Management v. Jiminez , 839 NW2d 640 (Iowa 2013), the Iowa Supreme Court addressed an issue that they had elliptically addressed in the past - the right of undocumented workers to receive workers' compensation benefits.  The court concluded that Iowa's statute did not exclude undocumented workers from coverage and also found that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) did not act to preempt state laws governing workers' compensation.  Three amicus curiae  briefs were filed in Jimenez  by the Workers' Injury Law and Advocacy Group, the Iowa Association of Justice's Workers' Compensation Core Group and the National Employment Law Project.  Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne and Ozga wrote the amicus brief for the Core Group. The factual situation in Jimenez  involved a worker who was documented at the time she began employment, but who became undocumented during the time that she worked for the employer.  She was injured at work, and...

Claimant was exposed to chemicals while working with his employer, Jeld-Win, Inc.  He developed a sensitivity to those chemicals, missed work because of this, and ultimately had to leave his employment with the company because of his injury.  The agency concluded that claimant had suffered a 25% industrial loss rather than the permanent total disability urged by claimant.  The agency also concluded that claimant was entitled to healing period benefits.  In Deckert v. Jeld-Wen , No. 13-0288 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2013), the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The court found that the agency had provided a detailed explanation for the determination that claimant had suffered only a 25% industrial loss.  The agency had noted that the only restriction on claimant was not being exposed to isocyanate or diisocyanates in the environment.  Claimant had rejected an offer by the company to move to one of their other plants where he would not b...

In Hansen v. Snap-On Tools Manufacturing Company , No. 12-1038 (Iowa App. Feb. 27, 2013), among the issues addressed by the court was the questions of successive disabilities under section 85.34(7)(b) of the Code.  The court seems to conclude that section 85.34(7)(b) does not apply to unscheduled injuries, which would, if affirmed, have a serious impact on the current law concerning that section of the act. Hansen  also addresses issues concerning costs, extent of impairment, healing period and temporary partial benefits. Claimant sustained two injuries at work, a left shoulder injury in 2005 and an injury to her right hand and arm in 2007 which was traumatic.  The shoulder injury was cumulative, although there was medical evidence that there was a later acute injury to the shoulder superimposed on the cumulative process.  The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to 15% industrial disability, did not specifically accept or reject claimant's computatio...

Village Credit Union v. Bryant , No. 11-1499 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012), involved the question of whether a claimant who had been held up at gunpoint on two occasions, had established a mental/mental injury and thus was entitled to temporary benefits (the issue of permanency was not before the court in this proceeding).  Claimant was understandably upset by the events at work, and Dr. Jennisch concluded that she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder and should work for an employer where she had scheduled appointments rather than random encounters with individuals off the street. Claimant found a job following the robberies with another employer, but had an anxiety attack shortly after beginning work, and quit that employment.  The deputy concluded, under Brown v. Quik Trip Corp., 641 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 2002), that claimant had been subjected to events of a sudden, traumatic nature that led to unusual stress, and thus had a compensable mental/mental injury.  The de...

In MC&R Pools v. Shea , No. 1-279 (Iowa App. June 15, 2011), the court of appeals affirmed a decision of the commissioner finding that the employer was liable for penalty benefits as well as healing period.  Shea involved a claimant who had preexisting conditions, including a 25 pound lifting limit on his activities.  He slipped on ice while at work, involving a neck injury and eventual cervical fusion.  The treater found that the injury caused an aggravation of Shea's underlying condition, and an medical reviewer concluded that this aggravation was temporary and that Shea had returned to baseline prior to the cervical fusion.  The commissioner awarded 40% industrial disability and imposed a penalty on the employer for failure to pay benefits. On the penalty issue, which involved the failure of the employer to pay any benefits (this issue was based on the penalty law as it existed prior to changes in the law in July of 2009), the court noted that the employer ...

In Kone, Inc. v. Harrison , No. 08-891 (Iowa App. Feb. 23, 2011), the Iowa Court of Appeals addressed a situation where the deputy found the claimant not to be credible, and concluded that claimant had failed to establish a permanent impairment.  The commissioner reversed the decision on compensability, finding that the medical evidence supported the contention that there was a permanent impairment.  Also presented were issued of whether claimant retired because of his injuries or because of a planned retirement, and whether penalty was appropriate.  The commissioner concluded, contrary to the hearing deputy, that claimant was entitled to both healing period and penalty benefits.  The district court reversed the agency's decision on all three issues. The court noted the in determining whether substantial evidence supported the agency's decision, it was the agency's decision that was being reviewed, not the decision of the hearing deputy.  Although the district...

In Waldinger Corporation v. Mettler , No. 0-647 (Iowa App. Nov. 24, 2010), the court addressed issues of apportionment in scheduled member cases, healing period issues, and issues involving the Second Injury Fund.  Of particular interest is the court's approach to healing period, which appears to deny the possibility of intermittent healing periods. Claimant was in the military and suffered a number of injuries prior to returning to his work as a plumber at Waldinger.  Before starting that employment, claimant was provided a 20% impairment rating from VA for leg injuries, and 10% for right knee injuries.  Considering impairments to his spine, as well as tinnitus, claimant was found to have a 70% total impairment, which entitled him to $1100 per month from the VA. Claimant was able to perform his work with Waldinger when he began working.  Over time, he developed more problems with his right ankle, for which he had four surgeries.  This injury forced him out ...