Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Turner v. NCI Building Systems , No. 23-1003 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) Claimant was found to have suffered a mental health injury at work, but that injury was found not to be permanent.  The commissioner also concluded claimant had suffered injuries to his bilateral lower extremities, left shoulder and thoracic spine and awarded a 40% industrial disability. Claimant sought to have the report of a pain psychologist, provided two days after hearing, into evidence and this request was initially denied by the deputy, but allowed by the commissioner. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner, denying both the employer's appeal and claimant's cross-appeal. The Court notes first that challenging the agency's decision on the basis that the decision was illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable was a "heavy lift." The Court considered the admission of the pain psychologist's decision and noted that the lateness of the report was due to the fact ...

Knaeble v. John Deere Dubuque Works , No. 21-1934 (Iowa App. Nov. 17, 2022) Claimant suffered three injuries while working for John Deere - one to his right leg and left foot in 2014, a second to his hands and finger in 2017 and a third to his shoulder in 2017.  On the 2014 petition, claimant was awarded a 30% industrial award.  A second petition against the Fund was consolidated with the third petition against the employer.  The deputy concluded that claimant had an 85% industrial loss for the first and second injuries and that the industrial loss for the third injury was 5%.  The deputy determined that the industrial disability for all three injuries was 92%.  The commissioner affirmed the 85% industrial loss.  Contrary to the decision of the deputy, however, the commissioner found that the employer only owed 5% industrial disability due to the shoulder injury.  The deputy found that Deere was responsible for a combined industrial disability of 35% (...

  Tilton v. H.J. Heinz Company , No. 21-1777 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) In a prior proceeding, the Court of Appeals remanded claimant's case to the commissioner for a redetermination of the date claimant knew or should have known her back injury would have a permanent adverse impact on claimant's employment.  The court concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant knew of the permanent adverse impact on September 8, 2010 was not supported by substantial evidence. On remand, the deputy concluded claimant should have known her injury had a permanent adverse impact on her employment on February 4, 2010, based on a chiropractor's report that her injury was permanent and taking her off work for two to four weeks.  The deputy concluded the claim was barred under section 85.23.  On judicial review, the district court reversed, finding that as claimant did not have a doctor's note giving her permanent restrictions on September 8, 2010, she could not have had notice...

  American Home Assurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. , No. 20-0769 (Iowa App. July 21, 2021) In this action, two insurers were involved in a workers' compensation action.  The deputy initially ordered American Home to pay claimant 125 weeks of PPD benefits and this award was affirmed.  American Home paid the benefits.  Claimant subsequently sought review reopening, at which time American Home discovered it was not the insurer on the date of injury in question. American Home filed an Application and Consent Order for Payment of Benefits under 85.21 and subsequently filed a petition for contribution under 85.21 for benefits paid to date as well as benefits due as a result of the pending RR petition.  Liberty filed a motion for summary judgment, indicating that contribution or reimbursement could only be obtained after an 85.21 order was issued and because an order was not issued until January 3, 2017, no benefits issued prior to that date were recoverabl...

 In American Home Assurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. , No. 20-0769 (Iowa App. July 21, 2021), claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits and was awarded those benefits against American Home, which American home paid.  Claimant later filed a review-reopening petition, at which point American Home discovered it was not the insurer on the claim as of the time of injury.  American then filed an application for payment of benefits under 85.21.  Claimant later filed a petition for contribution under section 85.21, seeking repayment of all benefits paid from Liberty Mutual, the insurer on the claim as of the time of injury. Liberty argued that they were only responsible for benefits paid after an 85.21 order had been issued. The deputy found Liberty was on the hook for all benefits paid, but the commissioner partially reversed, finding that "because American Home failed to seek an Iow Code section 85.21 consent order prior to the arbitration hearing, Libe...

 In Millanes-Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , No. 19-2077 (Iowa App. Jan. 21, 2021), the agency and district court denied benefits to claimant, finding that claimant suffered no permanent impairment from a fall that occurred in the course of his employment.  On appeal, claimant argues that the commissioner erred as a matter of law in considering only the AMA Guides to determine permanency.  Claimant also alleges that the agency erred in applying law to fact by failing to consider chronic pain as sufficient evidence of a change in physiological capacity in a scheduled member case.  Finally, claimant argues that the decision to deny permanent disability is not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant had a stipulated work injury and argued that he was entitled to permanency because of chronic pain and changes sustained in his left arm.  He argued that the commissioner erred by not considering any evidence beyond the AMA Guidelines when determining the extent...

Claimant was originally found to have suffered a 40% industrial disability following the arbitration hearing.  On appeal, the commissioner's designee concluded that the appropriate level of disability was 25%.  The reviewing deputy also reversed an award of alternate medical care and penalty benefits by the hearing deputy.  In Harrod v. Advance Services Inc., No. 19-0169 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2020), the Court of Appeals affirms the appeal decision. Claimant suffered shoulder and neck injuries at work.  The treating doctor provided treatment for the shoulder injury, but not the neck injury.  Claimant sought alternate medical care, which was denied by defendants.  The hearing deputy concluded claimant had suffered a 40% industrial disability and also found that alternative care was appropriate because claimant was still in pain and the treating doctor did not treat spinal injuries.  A penalty of $4500 was awarded for failure to pay benefits in a timel...

In Dubinovic v. Des Moines Public Schools , No. 18-1065 (Iowa App. June 5, 2019), the court was presented with the commissioner's denial of claimant's application for penalty benefits.  Claimant argued that healing period benefits were not paid in a timely manner and that penalty benefits were due for this and for later payment of permanency.  The commissioner found that the employer paid healing period and permanency benefits in a timely manner. The court of appeals first finds that claimant did not establish that there was a delay in payment or a denial of benefits since the employer had paid benefits on a timely basis.  Claimant alleged that the payment of  healing period benefits was several days late.  Claimant was paid wages by the employer until January 25 and healing period benefits were begun on January 29 for amounts higher than claimant's weekly earnings.  The court finds that on these facts, the failure to award penalty benefits was not irr...

In Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc., No. 18-1051 (Iowa App. May 15, 2019), the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the commissioner and district court and held that a claimant was not required to prove a discrete and distinct injury to prove a cumulative injury had occurred.  Claimant had suffered and injury to her right ankle in 2008 and was provided with a 17% rating for this injury.  She returned to work following the injury.  In 2014, claimant filed another petition, alleging that she had sustained a cumulative injury to the right ankle following her return to work.  The commissioner concluded that claimant had not suffered a distinct and discrete injury and held that under Ellingson , the failure to demonstrate such an injury defeated her claim.  The commissioner found that the deterioration of claimant's ankle condition was a sequella of the initial injury and was not compensable, as claimant was outside the statute on limitations on ...

In Bahic v. Mercy Medical Center , No. 17-1374 (Iowa App. June 20, 2018), the commissioner had concluded that claimant, who had a stipulated work injury to her back, had not suffered a permanent impairment.  The commissioner's decision came in the wake of the deputy's decision, which had concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the back injury.   Following the back injury, Dr. Boarini had concluded that claimant's injury was "extremely minimal."  Dr. Mendoza had found that the condition of claimant's back was such that she needed a fusion, which he performed.  Dr. Mendoza, however, concluded that the injury was not related to claimant's work. In reversing the deputy, the commissioner held that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement in February of 2014, before Dr. Mendoza had performed surgery.  The commissioner found Dr. Mendoza's opinions to be the most credible.  In reviewing the commissioner's ...

Claimant was found to have met her burden of demonstrating that she suffered a work related injury to her shoulder, but the agency concluded that she did not establish permanent total disability.  Merrick v. Crestridge, Inc., No. 17-0745 (Iowa App. March 21, 2018).  On appeal, claimant contends that the agency's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and that the agency misapplied the law to the facts. Claimant suffered a shoulder injury and the doctors initially believed that the injury had caused capsulitis.  She was placed on light duty work following the injury and was provided with injection therapy, which was helpful.  She was released to regular duty work, but did not return to work for the employer. The treating doctor concluded there was no permanent functional impairment and she was provided a 0% rating.  Dr. Kreiter, who performed an IME, found that claimant had a 13% BAW rating as a result of shoulder instability and a possible labral t...

Claimant was awarded a 10% industrial disability and was denied penalty benefits.  On appeal, the court in Allen v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 17-0313 (Iowa App. Feb. 21, 2018)  affirms the decision of the agency.  The court notes that claimant did not plead entitlement to penalty benefits and the commissioner noted that under 876 IAC 4.2, the claimant was required to please entitlement to penalty benefits before such benefits may be awarded.  Claimant contends that the mention of this issue in an answer to interrogatories should be sufficient. The court noted that whether they gave deference to the agency's interpretation of its rules or not, the district court was not in error in affirming the commissioner's interpretation. Thus, even under a less deferential standard of review, the agency's interpretation was not illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable.  Section 4.2 specifically provides that entitlement to penalty "shall be pled."  The court f...

In Lopez v. Cargill Meat Solutions , No. 16-1421 (Iowa App. July 6, 2017), the court rejected claimant's allegations that his claim should have been considered as an industrial disability and affirmed the functional award of 45 weeks of benefits.  Claimant argued that his experts presented substantial, credible evidence of industrial disability and it was unfair, irrational and illogical to reject those opinions. The court concluded that the agency had given greater weight to certain expert opinions over others and thoroughly explained the reasons for doing so.  Because those findings were supported by substantial evidence and were not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable, the decision of the agency stood.

In Ayala v. Tyson Foods, Inc. , No. 16-0505 (Iowa App. Jan. 11, 2017), claimant was initially provided a 45% industrial award.  Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening petition after he had surgery and his impairment rating was increased from 13% to 23%.  Although the commissioner acknowledged this medical evidence, he found there had been no change in claimant's earning capacity, as claimant had no earnings loss and his work restrictions were largely unchanged or lessened. Claimant contended that the commissioner's decision was irrational, illogical and wholly unjustifiable.  The court rejected this contention, noting that functional impairment was a single, but not controlling factor in determining the extent of industrial disability.  The court also concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence, again noting that there was evidence that claimant's earning capacity remained unchanged.  The decision of the commis...

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner dismissing claimant's case on grounds of lack of notice and statute of limitations.   Ross v. American Ordnance , No. 16-0787 (Iowa App. Jan. 11, 2017). Claimant hurt her shoulder on November 1, 2012 and told her supervisor about this injury.  She was asked whether she needed to see a doctor but claimant indicated she was not hurt that bad.  She did not fill out an injury report.  She continued to have problems with her shoulder and saw a doctor for a cortisone injection on January 11, 2013.  An incident report was made on March 14, 2013 and claimant was diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear and later had surgery. At hearing, claimant testified that she told her supervisor she had hurt her shoulder.  The supervisor testified that claimant told him her shoulder "hurts a little bit."  He was not sure claimant was relating her injury to work and did not ask whether she was injured while worki...

Polaris Industries v. Quastad, No. 15-1572 (Iowa App. Aug. 17, 2016) represents the latest Court of Appeals decision to note that the scope of review on appeal is limited, and that the commissioner's decision can only be reversed if that decision is illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable.  The court affirms a 35% industrial disability award and notes that there can be a diminution of earning capacity even when there has not been a diminution in actual earnings, citing ABF Freight Systems, Inc. v. Veenendaal, No. 11-1862, 2012 WL 186033, at *4 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012).

In Jack Cooper Transport Co. v. Jones , No. 15-0960 (Iowa App. April 6, 2016), the commissioner concluded that a truck driver who suffered a back injury was permanently and totally disabled.  In the decision, the causation determination and restrictions of the IME physician, Dr. Koprivica, were accepted over the opinions of Dr. Boarini or Dr. Ciccarelli.  The district court affirmed the PTD award on substantial evidence grounds. Noting that the issue of causation was within the realm of medical expert testimony, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant sustained a permanent injury.  The court also concluded that the finding of permanent total disability was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.  The court noted that claimant was not able to return to work after the back injury.  Dr. Koprivica restricted claimant from driving a truck, which had been the only work performed by the claimant.   ...

In Bridgestone/Firestone v. Dalton , No. 15-0571 (Iowa App. Feb. 24, 2016) , claimant suffered an injury to his shoulder which was denied by the company.  The agency found that claimant's injury had resulted in a 50% industrial disability and a penalty of $75,000.00 was assessed against the employer by the deputy.  On appeal, the penalty award was reduced to $33,027.69.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision. The court noted that factual issues were decided based on the substantial evidence standard, and that the application of law to facts was determined based on the "demanding 'irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable' standard of section 17A.19(10)(m)." On the penalty issue, the court noted that Dr. Troll had found that because there was no specific injury, he could not relate his shoulder problems to work.  Claimant subsequently saw Dr. Neff, who recommended surgery.  The agency found that Dr. Troll's opinion was not a reason...

In Gleeson Constructors and Engineers, LLC v. Madrigal , No. 14-1467 (Iowa App. Jan. 13, 2016), the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of permanent total disability benefits on substantial evidence grounds. Claimant was a Mexican national who had three semesters of college in Mexico, but who was not fluent in English.  He suffered an episode at work in 2007 where his back locked.  He was placed on light duty and continued this work until he had surgery in 2009 and quit his job.  Physicians and therapists believed the surgery was successful and there was no objective physical impairment to his back.  Claimant testified to the extreme pain, loss of strength, inability to sleep and jerking in his left leg that occurred following the surgery. The court indicates that the subjective degree of pain made claimant's credibility an issue.  Defendants also alleged that claimant had "a history of attempting to avoid work."  Three functional capacity evaluations w...

Claimant in Sterling Commercial Roofing, Inc. v. Berzle , No. 15-0351 (Iowa App. Dec. 23, 2015), sustained a shoulder injury at work.  On substantial evidence grounds, the Court of Appeals concluded that the commissioner's decision finding a permanent disability that arose out of claimant's work activities was supported by substantial evidence, as the commissioner had considered the competing evidence on this issue. The employer also argued that the determination claimant was permanently and totally disabled was illogical, irrational and wholly unjustifiable.  The Court noted that claimant was a 56 year old roofer with restrictions of lifting no more than 2 pounds, with difficulties in school and no skills other than in roofing.  This was not an irrational finding by the commissioner, according to the court, and the decision was affirmed.