Posts

Showing posts with the label industrial disability

Iowa Supreme Court Holds That a Second Injury for SIF Purposes Can Encompass an Injury That Includes Both a Scheduled and Unscheduled Component, But That the Fund Receives Credit For the "Full Amount of the Employer's Liability for the Second Qualifying Injury"

Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Strable , No. 24-0056 (Iowa Dec. 13, 2024) In this Second Injury Fund case, the Court addresses the issue of whether a second injury for Fund purposes can be brought when that injury also encompasses non-scheduled injuries.  This particular issue had previously been decided by the Court in Delaney v. SIF , 6 NW3d 714, 717 (Iowa 2024) and the Court affirms its finding in Delaney  that such an injury can be the subject of a Fund claim.  Strable goes beyond Delaney in also considering the credits accorded the Fund in such a situation, finding that those credits include not only the scheduled value of all such claims, but the industrial value of those claims. In this case, claimant had a first injury in the form of injuries to the arm (carpal tunnel). She subsequently suffered an ankle injury, which included unscheduled sequela injuries (back and mental health injuries).  She settled the ankle injury by way of a commutation and settled the u...

Court of Appeals Holds that Injuries to Two Shoulders Are Not to be Considered Industrially Under 85.34(2)(v)

Nordstrom v. Carmer , No. 23-1423 (Iowa App. May 8, 2024) Claimant suffered an accepted injury to her right shoulder in August of 2018. She subsequently developed pain in her left shoulder due to overcompensating for her right shoulder injury with her other arm. Claimant's IME physician opined that the left shoulder injury was due to overcompensation due to the right shoulder injury while defendants' doctor indicated that the left shoulder injury was due to rheumatoid arthritis and was not work-related.  The commissioner concluded that both shoulder injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and found that the injuries should be treated as unscheduled under 85.34(2)(v).  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissoiner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first concludes that the report of Dr. Segal, claimant's IME doctor, was supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that the decision concerning medical causation was essentially within the do...

Court of Appeals Concludes Claimant Preserved Error on Industrial Disability Benefits Issue

  Schoenberger v. Zephyr Aluminum Products No. 22-1613 (App. April 12, 2023) Claimant suffered an injury to his left shoulder, resulting in a rotator cuff repair.  Testing demonstrated tha tclaimant had ulnar neuropathy at the left elbow, which an IME found was a sequela to the original injury.  The deputy found claimant failed to demonstrate an injury that extended into the body as whole and 76 weeks of benefits were awarded due to the shoulder injury.  Claimant appealed, arguing that he had established an industrial disability.  The appeal decision failed to specifically address whether his injury qualified as industrial because it constituted a combined shoiulder and arm injury.  The district court found that error on this issue had not been preserved as claimant had not "previously and explicitly raised the question of a combined shoulder and arm injury or secured a ruling thereon." On appeal, claimant contended that raising his industrial disability a...

Supreme Court Holds That a "Shoulder" Injury Is Not Limited to the Glenohumeral Joint

  Chavez v. MS Technology, LLC, No. 21-0777 (Iowa April 1, 2022) Deng v. Farmland Foods, Inc. , No. 21-0760 (Iowa April 1, 2022) In these two cases, the Supreme Court addressed, for the first time, whether the 2017 changes made by the Iowa Legislature creating a a new 85.34(2)(n) and a new scheduled member injury for injuries to the "shoulder" was limited to the glenohumeral joint or extended beyond that joint to other structures affecting the shoulder.  The question raised was whether injuries outside of the glenohumeral joint should be considered to be industrial disabilities or limited to the 400 weeks of benefits under 85.34(2)(n).  The Court, in an opinion announced in the Chavez  case, held that shoulder injuries were not limited to those affecting the glenohumeral joint and further found that shoulder cases are to be determined according to the 400 week schedule in 85.34(2)(n). Claimant Chavez was found to have a full thickness rotator cuff tear and underwent ...

Court of Appeals Affirms Award of Industrial Disability and Penalty Benefits

Masterbrand Cabinets v. Simons , No. 20-1635 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021)  The commissioner concluded that claimant had suffered a ruptured right quadriceps tendon, concluded that this injury extended into the body, specifically the hip and awarded industrial disability benefits as well as penalty.  Defendants appealed and the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that defendants' argument that claimant's injury was a scheduled injury was a "miserly reading of the statute."  The court noted that if an injury to a scheduled member has effects extending beyond that member, resulting in permanent impairment to the body as a whole, this may be the basis of industrial disability.  The court concludes that the commissioner did not err in interpreting the law in finding that the injury extending into the body as a whole. The court also concludes that the commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evide...

Court of Appeals Affirms 65% Industrial Disability Award for Sequela Injury to Back. Penalty Benefits Denied.

In Presbyterian Homes and Services, Inc. v. Buchanan , No. 19-0010 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2020), the agency concluded that claimant had established industrial disability as a result of a sequela injury to the back suffered after a left foot injury.  Claimant was awarded 65% industrial disability as well as penalty benefits for withholding of healing period benefits without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.  The district court affirmed on medical causation and industrial disability but reversed the penalty award. On appeal, the court noted that claimant had a long history of left foot problems,  right foot problems and back injuries.  She suffered an injury to her left ankle in 2014, but did not immediately report the problems to her employer. She sought treatment approximately 3 months later.  The initial medical reports did not establish a work-related injury.  Her pain increased in an August she reduced her shifts.  The employer offered to sta...

Court of Appeals Affirms Commissioner's Industrial Disability Findings

In Harper v. Lensing, Ltd., No. 17-1615 (Iowa App. July 18, 2018), the Court of Appeals affirmed the industrial disability findings of the agency in light of claimant's argument that the agency had not demonstrated a "logical pathway" outlining the commissioner's industrial disability determination.   Claimant suffered an automobile accident while at work, as a result of which her duties were modified.  She later had a fall at home, was placed on light duty and ultimately had her restrictions lifted.  Claimant then developed pneumonia and missed substantial amounts of work.  The employer terminated her employment. Claimant was paid 17 weeks of benefits before hearing.  The deputy and commissioner concluded that claimant was not entitled to permanency above the payment of that 17 weeks of benefits.  The commissioner relied on the opinions of Dr. Jones and Dr. Broghammer.  Claimant sought rehearing and the commissioner again found that he r...

Court of Appeals Decides Case Involving Accommodated Work

In Norton v. Hy-Vee, No. 16-1299 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2017), claimant's back and neck injury resulted in a 25% loss in hours in her work as a pharmacy tech.  Despite the injuries, she continued to work and was described as a motivated and valuable employee both before and after the injury.  Claimant argued that she was permanently and totally disabled, inasmuch as she would not have been able to work absent the accommodations provided by Hy-Vee.  The employer argued that claimant did not have a significant industrial disability because she continued to work.  The deputy and commissioner found that claimant was entitled to a 70% industrial disability.  The commissioner found that the award of permanent disability was based on claimant's ability to continue as a pharmacy tech and her ability to find new employment should she leave Hy-Vee. The district court affirmed, finding that the agency had correctly interpreted decisions focusing on claimant's ability to earn i...

Court of Appeals Affirms 40% PPD Award

In Polaris Industries, Inc. v. Sharar , No. 14-1648 (Iowa App. April 22, 2015), the court finds that substantial evidence supports the determination of the agency that claimant suffered a 40% industrial loss. Claimant suffered an injury to his right shoulder, requiring two surgeries.  As a result, claimant's job with the employer changed, although he was able to perform his tasks largely unassisted.  Claimant's IME physician provided restrictions of 35 pounds lifting and a vocational specialist noted a reduction of employability of 61%, and a reduction of labor market access of 70%, with a loss of earning capacity of 65%.  The arbitration decision, as affirmed by the commissioner, resulted in a finding of a 40% loss of earning capacity. The court finds that substantial evidence supported the 40% industrial finding, noting claimant was prevented from engaging in heavy physical labor, had difficulties adapting to retraining and learning new skills.  The employer ci...

Court of Appeals Affirms Decision Holding that Deep Vein Thrombosis is an Industrial Injury

In Architectural Walls Systems v. Towers , No. 13-1653 (Iowa App. July 16, 2014), the Court of Appeals addressed an issue that arises with some frequency before the commissioner - whether deep vein thrombosis can be an industrial injury for workers' compensation purposes.  In doing so, the court affirmed a finding that claimant had a 60% industrial disability. Claimant fractured his right ankle while working for the employer.  He had surgery, but six weeks after the surgery, he began having swelling in his right leg.  He was diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis and surgery was performed to remove a blood clot and insert a filter to prevent clots from moving to claimant's heart or lungs.  Thereafter, claimant was directed to take anticoagulants twice daily. Later testing revealed no active DVT in claimant's right leg.  Defendants' doctors (Troll and Mooney) provided claimant with a rating to the leg.  Dr. Kuhnlein found that the DVT was related to the ...

Award of Permanent Total Disability Affirmed

The Court of Appeals, in Cargill Meat Solutions v. DeLeon , No. 13-1266 (Iowa App. April 16, 2014), once again concludes that factual findings are left to the commissioner, and affirms an award of permanent total disability benefits.  The court adopted the conclusions of the district court, which had noted that the commissioner credited the views of Dr. Hines in finding permanent total disability. The court addressed defendants' argument that Dr. Hines was not provided with all prior medical treatment records, and that therefore the decision should be reversed under the Court of Appeals' decision in Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House .  The court noted that evidentiary rulings were in the commissioner's discretion and that a scrutinizing analysis was not to be given to decisions of the agency on factual matters.  The court also noted that the Supreme Court had vacated the decision in House , upon which Cargill had relied.  The court found that the commissioner had consider...

Court of Appeals Affirms Award Providing 60% Industrial Disability, Finding Claimant Credible and Awarding Costs

In JBS Swift & Co. v. Rodriguez Contreras , No. 13-0172 (Iowa App. Oct. 2, 2013), a case handled by Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne &Ozga, the court of appeals affirms the findings of the commissioner concluding that claimant was credible, increasing the industrial disability award from 20 to 60% and imposing costs against the employer. At the arbitration level, the deputy had indicated that the claimant was mostly credible.  The employer argued that because the deputy had found that claimant was "credible for the most part," the entire appeal decision was subverted.  The court of appeals noted that the finding that claimant was mostly credible was made because the deputy indicated that many of the questions posed were leading questions.  The court found that "read in context, any doubt expressed by the deputy involves the form of questioning rather than the resulting answers provided by Contreras," and concludes that the credibility finding was supported by...

Supreme Court Denies Further Review in Case Involving English Language Skills and Motivation

On February 22, 2013, the Supreme Court denied further review in Merivic v. Gutierrez , No. 12-0240, a case that had earlier been heard by the Iowa Court of Appeals.   See Merivic v. Gutierrez , No. 12-0240 (Iowa App. Nov. 15, 2012).  In Merivic , the court of appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner in Lovic v.   Construction Products, Inc.,  No. 5015390 (App. Dec. 27, 2007), was appropriate.  The  Lovic  decision had concluded that a lack of English language skills was a factor to be determined in considering the extent of industrial disability, and also concluded that the failure of a claimant to learn English was not to be considered in determining the client's motivation to work.  In Merivic , the employer had directly attacked Lovic  as being wrongly decided, and urged the court to find that Lovic  was not controlling.  The decision of the court of appeals found that the employer's position was an impermissible ...

Court of Appeals Decides Case Involving English Language Skills, Industrial Disability and Motivation

In Merivic, Inc. v. Gutierrez , No. 12-0240 (Iowa App. Nov. 15, 2012), the Iowa Court of Appeals declined to overturn the commissioner's holding in Lovic v. Construction Products, Inc., No. 5015390 (App. Dec. 27, 2007).  The Lovic decision had concluded that a lack of English language skills was a factor to be determined in considering the extent of industrial disability, and also concluded that the failure of a claimant to learn English was not to be considered in determining the client's motivation to work.  Both Gutierrez and Lovic were handled by Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga. Gutierrez involved a welder who had injuries to his shoulder and arm.  Claimant English language skills were minimal, and there was conflicting testimony presented at hearing over how easy or difficult it was to learn English for persons who were not native English speakers.  Claimant lost his job as a welder as a result of his injuries, and the commissioner determined that th...

Supreme Court Issues Decision On Suitable Work For Truck Drivers

Neal v. Annett Holdings , 814 NW2d 512 (Iowa 2012) represents the first time the Iowa Supreme Court has addressed issues regarding suitable work for truck drivers, who are often required to perform light duty work at a home terminal which may be hundreds or even thousands of miles away from the claimant's home.  The divided court concluded, in a 4-3 decision, that light duty work offered to a claimant who lived 387 miles from the terminal, and had family in his home state, was not suitable work under the circumstances. The evidence at hearing demonstrated that when claimant was driving, he was able to return home every weekend and occasionally during the week to his wife and three children.  Under the light duty work program, claimant was able to return only once every other weekend.  The arbitration decision found that the light duty work was suitable and that claimant had a 15% industrial disability for his shoulder injury.  On appeal, the commissioner found that...

Supreme Court Holds That Surgery Itself Is Not Sufficient To Establish Industrial Disability

In Westling v. Hormel Foods Corp ., 810 NW2d 247 (Iowa 2012), claimant developed shoulder problems and what was originally disagnosed as a partial rotator cuff tear, which was followed by surgery.  The operative report noted significant fraying of the anterior and superior labrum, as well as inflammation along the subscapularis muscle, but no rotator cuff tear was found.  Claimant was released with no restrictions, and the surgeon concluded that the surgery did not cause claimant to have a permanent impairment.  Claimant subsequently retired. Dr. Mary Shook performed an IME for claimant, and Dr.Shook attributed pain to arthritis and not overuse.  She concluded that claimant's current symptoms are not from repetitive tasks due to work assignments.  Dr. Shook concluded there was a 2% impairment in claimant's right shoulder and 3% in the left shoulder, both caused by arthritis.  Claimant was found to have no permanent impairment at the commissioner level....