Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Myers v. R.R. Donnelly & Sons , No. 17-0306 (Iowa App. Sept. 13, 2017), the Court of Appeals upheld a decision of the agency concluding that claimant's petition was untimely and was not saved by the discovery rule.   Claimant was employed by Donnelly as a press operator until 2011, when he was moved to another position because he could not longer perform the duties of a press operator as a result of back problems.  The back problems had begun in 1999.  The agency concluded that claimant knew his back problems were related to his work by 2009.  On November 2012, claimant received permanent restrictions of no lifting of more than 40 pounds and was terminated because the employer could not accommodate his work restrictions.  Claimant filed a petition on April 2, 2013. The agency concluded that claimant's injury date was 2/25/09, when claimant's doctor diagnosed him with disabling mechanical back pain and referred him to his surgeon.  The deputy f...

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 14-0771 (Iowa App. May 6, 2015), the Court of Appeals addressed issues concerning the date of injury in the context of a cumulative injury, and notice issues associated with the date of injury.  Claimant was awarded benefits by the agency, but the district court concluded that the agency had failed to use the correct legal test in determining the date of the cumulative injury.  The district court remanded the case to the agency and found that the employer was entitled to assert an untimely notice defense on appeal.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the correct legal test was not used, but also finds that the notice defense could not be considered on remand. Claimant had a left shoulder injury and returned to work after that injury.  She began having problems in the right shoulder and saw a nurse practitioner for the problem on June 1, 2010.  Following an MRI, a rotator cuff tear in the right shoulder was als...

In Tyson Foods v. Shaw , No. 12-0432 (Iowa App. Oct. 3, 2012), the court addressed issues of the manifestation date of the injury, and the corollary issue relating to the 90 day notice requirement.  The court affirmed the commissioner's findings which indicated that the manifestation date was sufficient to bring claimant within the 90 day notice requirement.  The court also found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant's manifestation was correct found by the agency. Claimant alleged a cumulative injury to his feet from his work at Tyson.  As a part of his job, he had to lift 50 pound bags of chemicals, and had to push heavy items.  He was required to wear rubber pullover boots on the job.  Claimant testified that his feet slipped in the boots because they were too large.  Claimant also had diabetes.  When problems began to develop with his feet, Tyson replaced his standard boots with leather steel toed boots.  Claimant ...

In ABCM Corp. v. Manning , No. 1-225 (Iowa App.  May 25, 2011), the court addressed the issue of cumulative injuries, and the further question of when those injuries became manifest.  Claimant suffered injuries to her knees and low back, which ultimately led to knee replacement surgery.  The commissioner found that claimant was not aware of the compensable nature of her injuries until after she had left employment, and rejected defendants' arguments that they had improper notice and that the statute of limitations had run. The court noted that the questions of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable character of the injury under Herrera  was a question of fact under Midwest Ambulance v. Ruud .  Here, the commissioner had a substantial degree of latitude in determining when the claimant should have known, as a reasonable person, when her injuries were compensable.  There was no error of law in finding that claimant did not know about compensabilit...