Iowa Workers' Compensation

Over the years, a number of trucking companies have required, as a condition of employment, that drivers' agree that when they are released to light duty work, they will accept treatment in Iowa.  In Roland v Annett Holdings, Inc. , No. 18-1092 (Iowa March 20, 2020), the Supreme Court addressed such a memorandum of understanding in the context of a class action challenge to such proceedings. Claimant was a driver for Annett, where he was injured.  He had signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) agreeing to short-term light duty and treatment in Iowa.  His initial treatment was in Alabama, where he lived.  His doctor prescribed a certain type of therapy with a cooling machine.  The employer sought to have claimant return to Iowa for treatment, but he could not travel by air with the machine and could not keep the electricity on for the machine while driving.  The employer required claimant to return to Iowa.  Claimant filed an alternate medical ca...

In Annett Holdings v. Roland, No. 15-0043 (Iowa App. Feb. 10, 2016), the Court of Appeals upheld a decision of the agency awarding claimant physical therapy in his home state of Alabama rather than the physical therapy that had been offered in Des Moines.  When claimant had begun work for Annett Holdings, he signed a "memorandum of understanding" indicating that as a condition of employment, he agreed to temporarily relocate to Des Moines for the purposes of performing modified work if he were injured on the job.  Claimant had an elbow injury, and surgery in Alabama, following which he was taken off work and referred for physical therapy, which originally occurred in Alabama. When claimant was released to light duty work, he was temporarily relocated to a Des Moines hotel, where physical therapy was performed.  Claimant filed for alternate medical care and the agency concluded that treatment provided 897 miles from claimant's residence was unreasonable and unduly inconv...