Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Authority , No. 21-0490 (Iowa April 14, 2023) Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer for an injury that occurred at work.  As a part of the case, the employer agreed that claimant's work had caused her cerebral hemorrhage.  The employer paid temporary benefits for the injury for three months, but the employer argued that the injury had not resulted in a permanent injury.  The agency agreed that no permanent injury had occurred and an appeal to the district court affirmed this result.  Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening claim (in a timely manner based on the earlier payment of temporary benefits), arguing that her injury had become permanent over time.  The agency, on summary judgment, concluded that claimant had previously litigated the issue of permanency and found that the claim was barred under res judicata principles. On judicial review, the district court conclude...

In Housley v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 20-0016 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), claimant suffered an injury with her employer and was paid benefits, but did not formally settle the case or receive an a decision from the agency finding that claimant suffered a permanent injury.  Claimant subsequently filed a SIF claim, not naming the employer.  The agency dismissed the action, finding that claimant had failed to carry her burden of proving a second injury for Fund purposes.  The commissioner and district court agreed. On appeal, the court of appeals notes that under section 85.64, claimant must establish a loss of use, which must be work-related and claimant must also establish permanent disability from the injury.  The court noted that under Braden, the Fund's obligation could not be assessed until the employer's liability is fixed.  In this case, since there had  been no settlement or determination of a permanent work-related injury and the Fund had not...

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 Broadlawns Medical Center v. Sanders , 792 NW2d 302 (Iowa 2010), Justice Marsha Ternus entered her last workers' compensation decision, reversing the Court of Appeals and concluding that the decision of the commissioner awarding permanent partial disability benefits was supported by substantial evidence.  Claimant worked at a group home for the mentally ill, where she was required to clean a room in which a client had committed suicide.  As a result of this experience, she began having nightmares, flashbacks and hallucinations, resulting in a diagnosis of PTSD. One of the physicians permanently restricted claimant from working at the group home where she had formerly worked.  She was assigned to work at a different group home, which she was able to do.  She earned less in terms of overtime after the reassignment.  Because of the work restrictions, the employer indicated it intended to terminate the employment of the claimant.  The doctor who had provid...

On March 5, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Bell Brothers Heating and Air Conditioning v. Gwinn , 779 NW2d 193 (Iowa 2010). The case involved the proof required by the employee to establish a claim for benefits and expenses on account of medical care obtained by the employee, but not authorized by the employer or the commissioner. Mr. Gwinn had obtained non-authorized care (surgery) a week before the arbitration hearing. The court noted that the employer generally had the right to control care (the so-called authorization defense), but that the statute allowed the employee to choose care in certain emergency situations, when the employer and employee agreed to alternate medical care, and when the commissioner approved alternate medical care. The court concluded, however, that the employer's right to select the medical care did not prevent the employee from choosing medical care at his or her own expense under two circumstances. The first circumstance is when the ...