Iowa Workers' Compensation

Paylor v. Dee Zee Inc., No. 14-1570 (Iowa App. Oct. 28, 2015)  involved a claim that was dismissed by the commissioner, who found that claimant's back injury and surgery were not related to his work injury.  The court notes that its scope of review was severely circumscribed and noted that judgment calls were left to the agency. The court affirmed the decision on substantial evidence grounds, noting that the agency carefully assessed the medical evidence, crediting certain medical providers over others and assessing the quality of the opinions, based on the medical history or lack thereof.  Because medical causation presented a question of fact vested in the discretion of the commission, and there was no abuse of this discretion, the decision of the agency was affirmed.

In First Fleet Corp. v. Hannam, No. 14-1254 (Iowa App. July 9, 2015), the court affirmed the decision of the agency finding that claimant's shoulder injury and nervous system injury had resulted in a 50% industrial disability for claimant.  Claimant had suffered admitted injuries to his legs as a result of a hit and run accident while he was driving truck, and an IME (Dr. Creighton) demonstrated that there was a 3% rating as a result of a gait derangement, a 19% impairment from loss of motion in the right hip, 3% for trochanteric bursitis and 3% for a shoulder injury associated with the accident.  Restrictions of minimal walking and not lifting more than 30 pounds and not lifting anything overhead were imposed.  A DME by Dr. Neff indicated there was a 1% impairment as a result of skin change over the sensory distribution to the right lateral femoral cutaneous nerve.  No work restrictions were imposed.  Dr. Conte, who had treated claimant, found a 0% functional i...

Claimant in Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Wander , No. 13-0567 (Iowa App. January 23, 2014) suffered a back injury while lifting a wood storm door core onto an assembly line.  Claimant was provided several high-dose steroidal regimens.  A MRI showed a disk bulge and possible avascular necrosis in the hips.  Ultimately, claimant had a total hip replacement with Dr. Noiseux.  Dr. Noiseux related this to the work accident.  Claimant also developed necrosis in the shoulder, and this was related to the steroidal treatment by Dr. Emerson.  Dr. Galles agreed with this assessment.  At hearing, the parties stipulated that the shoulder necrosis was work-related, but not the hip necrosis (primarily because the hip necrosis was diagnosed just after the steroidal treatment had begun). The deputy found that the hip condition was related to employment.  On appeal, the commissioner affirmed "noting the deficiencies in the opinions of all the physicians who render...