Posts

Showing posts with the label increased risk

Supreme Court Remands Case Involving Idiopathic Injury

In Bluml v. Dee Jays, Inc. , No. 18-0317 (Iowa Nov. 16, 2018), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded a case where the commissioner had held, as a matter of law, that an idiopathic injury involving a fall to a level floor, could not be considered a compensable injury.  Claimant had a seizure and fell on a ceramic floor while working for Long John Silver's. In the decision, the commissioner had indicated that there was no dispute that the hard floor had worsened the effects of the injury.  Nonetheless, the commissioner adopted what he found was the majority rule that regardless of the surface, an idiopathic fall was not compensable. The Court eschewed discussion of court of appeals decisions on the topic and instead focused on the earlier Supreme Court decision in Koehler Electric v. Wills, 608 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2003).  In that case, a claimant who fell from a ladder as a result of alcohol withdrawal was found to have sustained a compensable injury, relying on the incre...

Court of Appeals Decides "Arising Out Of" Case Favorably to Employee

In AARP v. Whitacre , No. 12-1519 (Iowa App. May 15, 2013), claimant was a 79 year old part time janitor for AARP.  While on a coffee break one day, claimant began to choke, stood up to get a drink of water, stumbled and fell, causing injuries to his head and face.  The deputy and commissioner found that this injury arose out of his employment and awarded benefits.  On judicial review, the district court reversed. In addressing the question, the court noted that the earlier decision in Lakeside Casino v. Blue , 743 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2007) had indicated that the arising out of test involved proof that a causal connection existed between the conditions of the employment and the injury. The COA also noted that earlier decisions of the Supreme Court were to the effect that risks that were personal to the employee were not compensable, but further noted that Lakeside Casino  and other cases had indicated that the work risk need be no greater than risks outside the workpl...