Iowa Workers' Compensation

  US Nursing Corp. v. Decormier , No. 25-0407 (Iowa App. Dec. 3, 2025) Claimant suffered an injury at work.  Under her contract at work, she was initially guaranteed 48 hours of work per week at $65 per hour, with $97.50 overtime.  She received a $10 per hour raise the week before she was injured. The deputy concluded her weekly rate was $1562.50 and denied penalty benefits.  On appeal, the commissioner agreed with the weekly rate but awarded a $5500 penalty.  Defendants filed a judicial review, which affirmed the decision of the commissioner The fighting issue with respect to the rate was whether section 85.36(6) or 85.36(9) was to be applied. The commissioner found that 85.36(6) appied, as claimant had worked at US Nursing for not only ten weeks in Sioux City but on an earlier assignment.  Defendants' argument that 85.36(9) applied because claimant had earned no wages or less than the usual wages customary in the industry was denied, as defendants' own wi...

  H.J. Heinz Co. v. Tilton , No. 24-0236 (Iowa App. Dec. 18, 2024) In this action, which had previously been before the Court of Appeals twice, the Court affirms a decision finding that the date of discovery of the injury was April 15, 2013, that the filing of the action was timely and that claimant was permanently and totally disabled based on aggravations of her back and mental conditions. Claimant had a long history of treatment for back problems, beginning in 2000, approximately a year after she began working for the employer.  She continued to treat for the injury throughout the years and in 2010 her chiropractor indicated that her disc bulges and bone spurs were permanent and could cause her to miss work, but also finding she was not currently incpacitated.  Claimant received a great deal of treatment in 2010 and left the employer on April 13, 2013 on disability.  At hearing, medical testimony indicated that claimant's work had been a substantial contributing f...

  Cochran v. Quest Liner, Inc. , No. 21-0288 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work and was paid healing period benefits for a time.  Defendants sent claimant a notice that healing period benefits would be ended as required by section 86.13.  Claimant alleged that he was entitled to additional healing period benefits and the arbitration decision found that claimant was entitled to continuing healing period benefits.  Penalty benefits were denied as the commissioner indicated it was reasonably debatable whether claimant was entitled to continuing benefits. Claimant appealed, arguing that defendants failed to obtain an impairment rating or do any further investigation to determine if he was entitled to further benefits after their authorized treating physician placed him at MMI.  On appeal, the court finds that the issue raised implicates the application of law to fact standard of review and that the decision will only be overturned if the a...

Foster v. East Penn Manufacturing Co., Inc. , No. 20-1738 (Iowa App. Dec. 15, 2021) Claimant suffered a work injury and was initially paid benefits for her time off work and for medical care. A second surgery was recommended, but the employer did not authorize the surgery or pay for her time off work after the second surgery.  The agency imposed penalty against the employer and this finding was affirmed by the district court.  Defendant appeals, arguing that the delay was necessary to investigate the claim, there was a reasonable basis for the delay and there was a good faith basis to dispute the entitlement to benefits. The surgeon who had performed claimant's original surgery recommended a second surgery.  Defendants sent claimant to a second surgeon (Dr. Kirkland), who found that claimant was not at MMI and indicated that the problems she was experiencing were related to the original injury.  The treating physician, Dr. Goding, requested an MRI, which was authoriz...

City of Maxwell v. Marshall , No. 20-0916 (Iowa App. Oct. 20, 2021)  Claimant suffered an injury while working as a volunteer firefighter for the City of Maxwell.  Claimant had a number of surgeries and sought healing period benefits for the period between January 17, 2015 and April 10, 2017.  The deputy awarded healing period benefits, but denied penalty benefits, finding that the employer was not consistently late in paying weekly benefits.  The commissioner affirmed and both parties filed for judicial review.  On judicial review, defendants requested remand to the commissioner for consideration of additional evidence that was not available at the time of hearing.  This request was denied and the district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.  Both parties appealed to the Court of Appeals. The penalty benefits question centered around claimant's date of injury and the date on which benefits should have started.  Claimant suffered an injury...

Masterbrand Cabinets v. Simons , No. 20-1635 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021)  The commissioner concluded that claimant had suffered a ruptured right quadriceps tendon, concluded that this injury extended into the body, specifically the hip and awarded industrial disability benefits as well as penalty.  Defendants appealed and the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  On appeal, the Court of Appeals noted that defendants' argument that claimant's injury was a scheduled injury was a "miserly reading of the statute."  The court noted that if an injury to a scheduled member has effects extending beyond that member, resulting in permanent impairment to the body as a whole, this may be the basis of industrial disability.  The court concludes that the commissioner did not err in interpreting the law in finding that the injury extending into the body as a whole. The court also concludes that the commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evide...

Kern v. Fenchel, Doster & Buck, P.L.C , No. 20-1206 (Iowa App. Sept. 1, 2021) Claimant suffered an injury while working, but when sent for an examination with a doctor engaged by the employer, that doctor found that the injury was not causally related to work.  Claimant subsequently had an IME with Dr. Bansal, who found causation and permanent impairment.  The commissioner found that claimant had suffered a permanent impairment as a result of an injury arising out of and in the course of employment.  Claimant's request for penalty benefits was denied.  A request for reimbursement of the IME was also denied, with the commissioner concluding that a finding of no causal connection was not tantamount to a finding of no impairment.  Citing DART v. Young , the commissioner denied reimbursement under 85.39.  Costs under rule 4.33 were also denied. On appeal, the Court of Appeals agreed that the case was governed by DART v. Young , noting that employers were "n...

Claimant in Drahozal v. Envoy Air, Inc ., No. 20-0027 (Iowa App. April 28, 2021) alleged that she was permanently and totally disabled due to frostbite in her fingers and a subsequent mental health injury and complex regional pain syndrome resulting from the initial work injury.  The commissioner found that claimant had suffered an 80% industrial disability due to the physical and mental health injuries, awarded healing period benefits and awarded penalty benefits for eleven delayed payments of benefits.  Penalty benefits for the mental health claim were denied.  Following appeals by both parties, the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner in its entirety. The Court of Appeals first addressed claimant's allegation that she was permanently and totally disabled.  Claimant had argued that due to her hand injuries, depression, age and education, there were no jobs in the community for which Drahozal could reasonably compete.  The claimant alleged s...

Clark v. Winnebago Industries , No. 20-0673 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), involved an injury to claimant's right hand, as well a claimant's allegations of penalty benefits and request for alternate medical care.   Following hearing, claimant was awarded a 10% impairment of the right upper extremity and alternate care at the Mayo Clinic.  Penalty benefits were denied.  The commissioner affirmed the decisions of the deputy. On the penalty questions, claimant had alleged penalty based on questions related to her marital status and whether she had suffered a permanent injury.  The penalty claims were denied on the basis that the issues were "fairly debatable."  Claimant testified at hearing she was married.  She could not find her marriage certificate and offered no tax returns confirming her martial status.  Winnebago presented a W4 showing that claimant was single.  Although the deputy ultimately found claimant was married, penalty benefits ...

In Regional Care Hospital Partners, Inc. v. Marrs , No. 19-2138 (Iowa App. Feb. 17, 2021), the court affirmed an agency decision in which claimant was found to have suffered back injuries and the need for surgery as a result of her work activities.  The deputy awarded a $50,000 penalty, which was reduced to $39,000 by the commissioner.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's award on appeal.   The appellate court first found that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's finding that claimant's injury was causally connected to her work activities.  The court noted that the opinions of Drs. Harbach and Kaspar were supportive of the decision of the agency.  The court also found that the commissioner had correctly determined claimant's rate and that the removal of a two week period in which claimant worked fewer hours than customary was supported by substantial evidence. On the penalty issue, the court noted that approximately $80,000 of b...

In True v. Heritage Care and Rehabilitation , No. 18-0818 (Iowa App. April 1, 2020), the court addressed two penalty issues brought by claimant. Claimant initially filed a medical only claim, but moved to amend the action 3 days before the statute of limitations filed to allege eligibility for temporary and permanency benefits as well as penalty. At hearing on the motion to amend, claimant listed permanent partial disability and alternate care, but not penalty benefits.  The deputy concluded the amended petition was timely and directed claimant to refile her petition.  When claimant refiled, penalty was not listed as issue, although the earlier petition had alleged penalty.  The deputy concluded on the merits that the earlier petition was the one to be considered and this was affirmed by the COA in an earlier decision on the case.  Benefits were ultimately paid to claimant in 2015.  After benefits were paid, claimant filed another action alleging penalty be...

Claimant was originally found to have suffered a 40% industrial disability following the arbitration hearing.  On appeal, the commissioner's designee concluded that the appropriate level of disability was 25%.  The reviewing deputy also reversed an award of alternate medical care and penalty benefits by the hearing deputy.  In Harrod v. Advance Services Inc., No. 19-0169 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2020), the Court of Appeals affirms the appeal decision. Claimant suffered shoulder and neck injuries at work.  The treating doctor provided treatment for the shoulder injury, but not the neck injury.  Claimant sought alternate medical care, which was denied by defendants.  The hearing deputy concluded claimant had suffered a 40% industrial disability and also found that alternative care was appropriate because claimant was still in pain and the treating doctor did not treat spinal injuries.  A penalty of $4500 was awarded for failure to pay benefits in a timel...

In Presbyterian Homes and Services, Inc. v. Buchanan , No. 19-0010 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2020), the agency concluded that claimant had established industrial disability as a result of a sequela injury to the back suffered after a left foot injury.  Claimant was awarded 65% industrial disability as well as penalty benefits for withholding of healing period benefits without reasonable or probable cause or excuse.  The district court affirmed on medical causation and industrial disability but reversed the penalty award. On appeal, the court noted that claimant had a long history of left foot problems,  right foot problems and back injuries.  She suffered an injury to her left ankle in 2014, but did not immediately report the problems to her employer. She sought treatment approximately 3 months later.  The initial medical reports did not establish a work-related injury.  Her pain increased in an August she reduced her shifts.  The employer offered to sta...

In Saltern v. HNI Corporation and Gallagher Bassett Services , No. 18-1748 (Iowa App. Oct. 9, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling dismissing a bad faith claim brought by plaintiff Saltern.  The ruling was premised on the court's conclusion that the employer did not lack a reasonable basis for denying benefits and thus the first prong of the bad faith test was not met. Claimant had prevailed in her workers' compensation claim on her claim for injury due to carpal tunnel syndrome.  Penalty was awarded based on the fact that HNI had not communicated its basis for rejecting the claim under section 86.13 of the Code.  Following the resolution of the workers' compensation claim, Saltern brought a bad faith action.  The district court concluded on summary judgment that at the time that HNI first denied the claim, there was no information to indicate that her carpal tunnel was related to employment. Specifically, no doctor had concluded that the ...

The Court of Appeals, in Hecht v. Highline Construction, Inc ., No. 18-2017 (Iowa App. Sept. 11, 2019), affirmed the commissioner's denial of permanency benefits as well as the denial of penalty benefits. The original arbitration decision had awarded claimant a 30% industrial award based on hearing loss and tinnitus.  Claimant testified that when working at a job as a driver after working for Hecht, he had a difficult time driving because of the tinnitus and hearing loss and left that job.  Following the hearing, defendants sought to introduce three additional exhibits, which demonstrated that claimant left Hecht because of unacceptable performance and left his subsequent job because he was asked to conduct illegal DOT inspections.  The deputy granted a motion to admit this evidence.  The commissioner affirmed this finding and based on this evidence, found that claimant was not credible and reversed the 30% award.   On appeal, claimant argues that u...

In Dubinovic v. Des Moines Public Schools , No. 18-1065 (Iowa App. June 5, 2019), the court was presented with the commissioner's denial of claimant's application for penalty benefits.  Claimant argued that healing period benefits were not paid in a timely manner and that penalty benefits were due for this and for later payment of permanency.  The commissioner found that the employer paid healing period and permanency benefits in a timely manner. The court of appeals first finds that claimant did not establish that there was a delay in payment or a denial of benefits since the employer had paid benefits on a timely basis.  Claimant alleged that the payment of  healing period benefits was several days late.  Claimant was paid wages by the employer until January 25 and healing period benefits were begun on January 29 for amounts higher than claimant's weekly earnings.  The court finds that on these facts, the failure to award penalty benefits was not irr...

In Baccam v. ACH Food Companies, aka Tone's, No.18-1002 (Iowa App. March 6,  2019), the court addressed issues concerning the extent of claimant's leg impairment,  the extent of penalties and costs of the action.  Claimant was found to have a 2% leg impairment by defendants' doctor, 3% from his IME doctor, but argued that based on his loss of use, his award should have been higher than the 3% awarded by the commissioner.   The Court of Appeals affirmed, based on substantial evidence.  On the penalty claim, claimant argued his penalty benefits on permanency should have been greater.  a 5% penalty award was made,  based on a failure to pay permanency benefits when due.  The court concluded that there was no error in this finding.  On the costs issue, the court found that claimant was not entitled to payment for the costs of the appeal transcript. On the remainder of costs, the court found that the commissioner had not abused its discreti...

In Pella Corp. v. Winn , No. 17-1545 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2019) , the court affirms an award of permanent total disability and penalty.  The employer had also argued that the petition for review-reopening was untimely and the court affirms the rejection of this argument by the agency. In the original action, claimant was found to have a work-related injury, but as temporary total and permanency benefits were not in dispute, only medical benefits were awarded.  This decision was ultimately affirmed by the Court of Appeals.  Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening proceeding, at which the agency awarded permanent total disability.and penalty benefits.  On review, Pella argued that review-reopening is not available under Iowa Code 85.26(2) and 86.14(2) when the initial award did not include weekly disability benefits. The agency determined an award of solely medical benefits was eligible for review-reopening under section 85.26(2).  Pella argued "weekly...

In Dunlap v. AIG, Inc., Commerce and Industry Insurance Company , No. 17-1503 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2019), the Court of Appeals reverses a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in a workers' compensation claim. The case was brought following a workers' compensation action in which claimant was found entitled to benefits but penalty benefits were denied because the issue of liability was fairly debatable because defendants had one doctor opining that the injury was not work-related.   In the underlying workers' compensation claim, Dr. Wolfe had opined that it is possible that Dunlap's arm injuries, while not directly caused by the initial work injury, were a result of the natural consequences of claimant's back injury requiring him to ambulate with the use of a cane. Despite this, defendants continued to deny liability. Claimant was ultimately found to be permanently and totally disabled and awarded medical care.   Plaintiff subs...

Claimant was awarded a 10% industrial disability and was denied penalty benefits.  On appeal, the court in Allen v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 17-0313 (Iowa App. Feb. 21, 2018)  affirms the decision of the agency.  The court notes that claimant did not plead entitlement to penalty benefits and the commissioner noted that under 876 IAC 4.2, the claimant was required to please entitlement to penalty benefits before such benefits may be awarded.  Claimant contends that the mention of this issue in an answer to interrogatories should be sufficient. The court noted that whether they gave deference to the agency's interpretation of its rules or not, the district court was not in error in affirming the commissioner's interpretation. Thus, even under a less deferential standard of review, the agency's interpretation was not illogical, irrational or wholly unjustifiable.  Section 4.2 specifically provides that entitlement to penalty "shall be pled."  The court f...