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...

In Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, No. 14-2062 (Iowa Dec. 18, 2015), the Court confirmed that the discovery rule applied to traumatic injury cases as well as cumulative injury cases.  The commissioner had ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Clark v. City of Spencer , No. 5017329 (App. Sept. 11, 2007), that the discovery rule did not apply to cases involving traumatic injuries.  On judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the agency and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court. The Court first discussed the purpose and character of the Iowa's workers' compensation system, noting that the costs of a work injury should be borne by the industry itself and not dependent on individual fault or negligence.  The "grand bargain" providing immunity to employers from potentially large tort lawsuits in exchange for a claimant not have to demonstrate negligence was discussed at length, as was the assurance of prompt payments in the...

In Menard, Inc. v. Simmer , No. 14-2078 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed a finding that under the discovery rule, claimant had provided timely notice of his injury. As a part of his work with Menard's, claimant was required to carry goods from the store to customers cars.  These loads weighed up to 300 pounds.  In 2008 and 2009, claimant began to experience pain in his feet and up to his thighs while working.  By April of 2010, pain had spread to claimant's lower back, and claimant's physician referred him to the Minnesota Back Institute.  In May of 2010, claimant learned for the first time that he had scoliosis.  He was provided with an injection and therapy and returned to Menard's without restriction.  By early 2012, claimant's back problems had worsened and the doctor at Minnesota Back Institute indicated that his employment may have led to his worsening back condition.  He also performed surgery on March 7, 2012. Claima...