Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Taylor v. Iowa State University Extension , No. 20-1397 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant was in a car accident as she was heading back to her office after giving a presentation.  She informed an office assistant of the accident and sought treatment from a chiropractor the next day.  When she sought treatment, she did not indicate her injuries were related to work.  Claimant testified that she spoke with her supervisor about the accident and the supervisor indicated the injuries were not work-related.  The supervisor testified she never told claimant the injuries were not work-related.  Claimant later told the employer her accident was work related after consulting an attorney some 22 months after the accident.  The agency concluded that claimant had not provided notice of the injury within 90 days of the incident and the case was dismissed under section 85.23. As an initial matter, the court addressed a motion to strike claimant's reply brief becau...

In Romero v. Curly's Foods , No. 18-2066 (Iowa App. Nov. 6, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a claim on notice grounds.  Claimant had alleged a cumulative injury and urged that she did not appreciate the permanent impact on employment until just before she notified defendants of the injury.  The commissioner concluded that claimant realized that the injury was work related and serious in May of 2013 because she argued she reported the injury to defendants at that time.  Defendants argued that notification had not occurred until 2014.  On the facts of the case, the commissioner concluded that claimant had not notified defendants in a timely manner.  The commissioner also noted that this was a fact specific finding, applicable only to this case.   Rather than delve into the question of when claimant appreciated that the injury would have a permanent impact on employment, the court finds that the commissioner's findings were supp...

In Ruiz v. Revstone Casting Industries, LLC , No. 16-1728 (Iowa App. Dec. 6, 2017), the court affirmed the decision of the agency that claimant had not provided sufficient notice of his hearing loss, back and hand  claims and affirmed the district court's order remanding claimant's back injury claim to the commissioner. Claimant worked for the employer as a grinder for 25 years. He began to feel he had a right to "something" from his injuries after he was prescribed hearing aids.  Claimant noted that he had made doctors' appointments on his own for his hands.  Claimant ultimately retired from Revstone in 2011 because of the pain in his foot, hands and back in addition to his hearing loss.  With respect to the carpal tunnel claim, the commissioner failed to specify a date of injury for the claim.  The court indicates that the carpal tunnel claim was a cumulative injury requiring application of the standard under Oscar Meyer Foods Corp. v. Tasler  which i...

The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner dismissing claimant's case on grounds of lack of notice and statute of limitations.   Ross v. American Ordnance , No. 16-0787 (Iowa App. Jan. 11, 2017). Claimant hurt her shoulder on November 1, 2012 and told her supervisor about this injury.  She was asked whether she needed to see a doctor but claimant indicated she was not hurt that bad.  She did not fill out an injury report.  She continued to have problems with her shoulder and saw a doctor for a cortisone injection on January 11, 2013.  An incident report was made on March 14, 2013 and claimant was diagnosed with a rotator cuff tear and later had surgery. At hearing, claimant testified that she told her supervisor she had hurt her shoulder.  The supervisor testified that claimant told him her shoulder "hurts a little bit."  He was not sure claimant was relating her injury to work and did not ask whether she was injured while worki...

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...

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 PMX Industries v. Reich , No. 12-1824 (Iowa App. May 30, 2013), the court addressed issues of tinnitus and hearing loss in a workers' compensation setting, and addressed the issue of when notice had to be provided for a tinnitus claim.  Claimant was a long time worker for PMX, which was an admittedly noisy facility.  Claimant testified that although he wore hearing protection, he would often have to remove the hearing protection in order to hear people talking within the plant. In 2008 he was diagnosed with a hearing loss and resigned from his employment. The doctor who addressed the hearing loss issues for the employer, Dr. Taylor, found that claimant had a 2.2% bilateral hearing loss.  Claimant was referred to Dr. Marlan Hansen at the University of Iowa, who agreed that claimant had noise-induced hearing loss.  Claimant was then referred to Dr. Plakke, who noted hearing loss, but indicated that because of the continued loss of hearing after he left PMX, this w...

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 ...