Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Wehde v. Georgia Pacific and Second Injury Fund , No. 15-0045 (Iowa App. No. 15-0045), the Court of Appeals addressed an issue where claimant had filed an original action against the employer and Fund and had prevailed and later filed a review reopening action.  In this action, claimant prevailed against the employer, and received an additional award of 8% for her left leg, but no additional impairment for her right leg and no additional industrial disability benefits from the Fund.  The agency concluded that there was an increased loss of earning capacity as a result of her additional loss of use to the left knee.  The agency assessed the costs for the left leg to the employer, ordered shared costs for the right leg, and costs relating to the loss of earning capacity were assessed to claimant. The district court affirmed and the case was appealed. The Court of Appeals concluded that although the treating doctor had not imposed restrictions in the original action, th...

In Menard, Inc. v. Scheffert,  No. 14-1029 (Iowa App. 2014), the Court of Appeals concluded that claimant's rate, which was computed on the basis of having received bonuses, was properly computed by the agency.  The court concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant's bonuses were not irregular was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable. Claimant received a bonus each year that her department was profitable.  From 1996 to 2008, the date of injury in the case, claimant received some amount of bonus, called the TPS bonus.  Additionally, claimant was eligible for an IPS bonus if the store was profitable.  Neither bonus was guaranteed, and could be revised downward based on fines assessed against employees.  Claimant received both a TPS and IPS bonus in the year of the injury, and the agency included these bonuses in determining claimant's rate.  The district court concluded that the agency's findings on this point were not irration...

Smithway Motor Xpress v. McDermott , No. 12-2296 (Iowa App. Nov. 20, 2013) is another in a line of cases where the Court of Appeals affirms the decision of the agency on substantial evidence grounds.  Claimant suffered a back injury while working for the employer.  He wished to leave his employment as a truck driver and was required to obtain a DOT physical.  He did not mention his back problems to the physician at the DOT physical.  He continued to have back problems and had continued treatment for those problems.  Dr. Neiman provided causal connection for the injury, but the hearing deputy found that a causal connection had not been established.  The commissioner reversed on appeal and provided a 40% industrial disability award. The court finds that the question of causation presents a mixed question of law an fact, adjudicated by the abuse of discretion standard.  The court must consider whether the law was applied in an unjustifiable, irrational ...