Iowa Workers' Compensation

  ConAgra Foods, Inc. v. Moore , No. 21-0339 (Iowa App. May 25, 2022) Claimant suffered a pop while twisting to lift a stack of boxes and felt immediate pain in his left hip.  Claimant reported his injury and subsequently went on vacation.  His pain continued and when he returned to work he was informed his injury was no longer considered work-related.  Claimant sought care on his own and was advised by his doctor to avoid activities that would aggravate his condition.  Claimant also developed back pain.  He received treatment in the form of medications, physical therapy and facet injections. Following the hearing on his claim, the deputy found, based on the reports of claimant's doctor and Dr. Segal, that claimant had suffered a work-related injury.  Claimant was found to have suffered a 40% industrial disability.  The commissioner affirmed and the district court affirmed the commissioner based on substantial evidence.   The Court of Ap...

Clark v. Winnebago Industries , No. 20-0673 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), involved an injury to claimant's right hand, as well a claimant's allegations of penalty benefits and request for alternate medical care.   Following hearing, claimant was awarded a 10% impairment of the right upper extremity and alternate care at the Mayo Clinic.  Penalty benefits were denied.  The commissioner affirmed the decisions of the deputy. On the penalty questions, claimant had alleged penalty based on questions related to her marital status and whether she had suffered a permanent injury.  The penalty claims were denied on the basis that the issues were "fairly debatable."  Claimant testified at hearing she was married.  She could not find her marriage certificate and offered no tax returns confirming her martial status.  Winnebago presented a W4 showing that claimant was single.  Although the deputy ultimately found claimant was married, penalty benefits ...

Pella Corporation v. Marshall , No. 14-2121 (Iowa App. April 6, 2016) involved a claimant who sustained an injury to his right shoulder.  At the deputy level, claimant's injury was found not to have arisen out of employment.  This decision was reversed by the commissioner, who concluded that claimant had a 20% industrial disability.  At the first judicial review proceeding, the case was remanded to the commissioner for a determination of whether the facts as testified to by the claimant or the history contained in the medical records would govern.  On remand the commissioner affirmed the initial decision, finding that no deference was provided to the original arbitration decision because there had been no credibility finding made in that decision.  This decision was affirmed by the district court. On appeal, after discussing the history and facts of the case in great detail, the court affirmed with respect to causation and the degree of industrial disability. ...

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...

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 ...