Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Havill v. Quaker Oats Company , No. 21-1740 (Iowa App. June 15, 2022) In this tinnitus case, the workers' compensation commissioner dismissed the claim, finding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.  The commissioner concluded that claimant knew or should have known of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable nature of the condition by fall of 2016 and yet did not file a claim until June of 2019.  In reaching this conclusion, the commissioner found that given the incidents and diagnoses made of tinnitus by the fall of 2016 and the fact that claimant sought care at that time, combined with a condition severe enough that claimant had an emotional reaction and needed to lie down, was sufficient to demonstrate claimant knew of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable character of the injury at that time.  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.   The Court of Appeals finds that substantial evidence supp...

  ABF Freight System Inc. v. Hilliard , No. 21-0855 (Iowa App. Jan. 27, 2022) Claimant suffered a neck injury in 2016 and was awarded a 30% industrial disability.  He later filed a request for review-reopening and was awarded an additional 20% by the deputy and commissioner.  This finding was affirmed by the district court. On appeal, the employer argued that there had been no changes in claimant’s physical condition and posited that claimant’s physician had not placed him on restrictions.  The court finds that the decision of the agency finding that there had been a change in physical condition was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, claimant’s physician opined that claimant’s condition had declined since his surgery and that he had developed chronic, debilitating pain.  The doctor also explained that he did not impose restrictions because they “don’t work . . . In general, I don’t impose them if - unless absolutely necessary.”  The court find...

  Cochran v. Quest Liner, Inc. , No. 21-0288 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work and was paid healing period benefits for a time.  Defendants sent claimant a notice that healing period benefits would be ended as required by section 86.13.  Claimant alleged that he was entitled to additional healing period benefits and the arbitration decision found that claimant was entitled to continuing healing period benefits.  Penalty benefits were denied as the commissioner indicated it was reasonably debatable whether claimant was entitled to continuing benefits. Claimant appealed, arguing that defendants failed to obtain an impairment rating or do any further investigation to determine if he was entitled to further benefits after their authorized treating physician placed him at MMI.  On appeal, the court finds that the issue raised implicates the application of law to fact standard of review and that the decision will only be overturned if the a...