Iowa Workers' Compensation

In  Weitz Co. v. Selin , No. 13-0939 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed the award of additional medical benefits to claimant.  The employer had argued that the injuries were not causally connected to the workplace injury, and further rejected the argument that certain medical expenses were unauthorized. Claimant suffered an accepted back injury, and had surgery with Dr. Nelson, who ultimately found claimant had reached MMI and suffered a 10% impairment.  Claimant indicated that he was having continuing problems, and filed an application for alternate medical care.  This was dismissed as defendants denied compensability.  Claimant sought care from Drs. Kimelman, McGuire and Igram.  At hearing, claimant was awarded PPD, but the request for additional medical expenses was denied by the deputy.  The commissioner reversed on the medical expenses question. The court of appeals found that the facts concerning the medical expenses wer...

The court in Emco v. Samardzic , No. 11-1375 (Iowa App. May 23, 2012) was presented with an issue of medical care for an injury to the arm that had occurred years in the past, but had been aggravated by work activities with the employer arose out of and in the course of employment.  Defendants argued that the injury to the wrist was a result of progressive arthritis and was related to the initial injury (2001) and not to the more recent injury (2007).  At the deputy level, defendants prevailed, but this decision was reversed on appeal, with the commissioner finding that claimant's work activities were a substantial factor in the need for the recommended surgery.  The commissioner also awarded the costs for medical reports to claimant. Dr. Formanek opined that work was a substantial contributing factor in the injury, while Dr. Gainer concluded that the progressive arthritis was the need for the surgery.  On substantial evidence grounds, the court agreed with the ...

In Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. v. McKenzie , No. 0-685 (Iowa App. Nov. 24, 2010), the Iowa Court of Appeals wrestled with issues involving review-reopening proceedings that had been addressed in Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat , 777 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 2009).  The question raised in the case was whether the commissioner had used the correct standard in determining whether the claimant was entitled to an increase in benefits. Claimant suffered a back injury, and was awarded 25% industrial disability benefits at the initial arbitration hearing.  Following the hearing, claimant continued to have difficulties with her back, although she had gastric bypass surgery to reduce her weight in the interim.  She filed a review-reopening petition, and at the arbitration and appeal levels was found to be permanently and totally disabled.  There was a great deal of emphasis in these decisions on whether claimant's continuing problems had been anticipated at the time of the original...