Iowa Workers' Compensation

  City of Harlan v. Thygesen , No. 21-0265 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022) In this hearing loss case, claimant suffered a hearing loss some ten years prior to the time claimant filed his claim and knew that his injury was work-related.  Claimant alleged that despite these facts, the statute did not begin to run on his claim until either 2014 (when he was provided with audiogram results) or 2015 (the date assigned by the employer because he did not appreciate the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury until those dates.  Defendants alleged that claimant failed to timely notify them of the claim and failed to timely file the claim. The commissioner found that claimant, despite being aware of hearing loss and the fact that the hearing loss was caused by employment, did not appreciate the severity of the claim, crediting the testimony of claimant.  The district court reversed and found that claimant knew the nature, seriousness and probable compe...

In Ruiz v. Revstone Casting Industries, LLC , No. 16-1728 (Iowa App. Dec. 6, 2017), the court affirmed the decision of the agency that claimant had not provided sufficient notice of his hearing loss, back and hand  claims and affirmed the district court's order remanding claimant's back injury claim to the commissioner. Claimant worked for the employer as a grinder for 25 years. He began to feel he had a right to "something" from his injuries after he was prescribed hearing aids.  Claimant noted that he had made doctors' appointments on his own for his hands.  Claimant ultimately retired from Revstone in 2011 because of the pain in his foot, hands and back in addition to his hearing loss.  With respect to the carpal tunnel claim, the commissioner failed to specify a date of injury for the claim.  The court indicates that the carpal tunnel claim was a cumulative injury requiring application of the standard under Oscar Meyer Foods Corp. v. Tasler  which i...

In PMX Industries v. Reich , No. 12-1824 (Iowa App. May 30, 2013), the court addressed issues of tinnitus and hearing loss in a workers' compensation setting, and addressed the issue of when notice had to be provided for a tinnitus claim.  Claimant was a long time worker for PMX, which was an admittedly noisy facility.  Claimant testified that although he wore hearing protection, he would often have to remove the hearing protection in order to hear people talking within the plant. In 2008 he was diagnosed with a hearing loss and resigned from his employment. The doctor who addressed the hearing loss issues for the employer, Dr. Taylor, found that claimant had a 2.2% bilateral hearing loss.  Claimant was referred to Dr. Marlan Hansen at the University of Iowa, who agreed that claimant had noise-induced hearing loss.  Claimant was then referred to Dr. Plakke, who noted hearing loss, but indicated that because of the continued loss of hearing after he left PMX, this w...

The case of Square D Company v. Plagmann ,No. 1-869 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2011) addressed an issue that does not appear frequently before the appellate courts - the question of tinnitus.  In Plagmann , the court concluded that the decision of the deputy commissioner who found that claimant's tinnitus was related to work was supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Tyler concluded that claimant's work with Square D had resulted in hearing loss and tinnitus, and provided a 4.5% impairment rating.  Dr. Tyler also found, incorrectly, that claimant had not worn hearing protection until he had worked with the employer for fourteen years (claimant had testified that even though there was no hearing protection program, he had worn hearing protection).  Dr. Hoisington concluded that claimant's hearing loss and tinnitus were not related to his work, in part because his hearing loss continued to worsen after he left work.  The deputy who heard the case sided with Dr. Hoisington, ...