Iowa Workers' Compensation

 In Millanes-Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , No. 19-2077 (Iowa App. Jan. 21, 2021), the agency and district court denied benefits to claimant, finding that claimant suffered no permanent impairment from a fall that occurred in the course of his employment.  On appeal, claimant argues that the commissioner erred as a matter of law in considering only the AMA Guides to determine permanency.  Claimant also alleges that the agency erred in applying law to fact by failing to consider chronic pain as sufficient evidence of a change in physiological capacity in a scheduled member case.  Finally, claimant argues that the decision to deny permanent disability is not supported by substantial evidence. Claimant had a stipulated work injury and argued that he was entitled to permanency because of chronic pain and changes sustained in his left arm.  He argued that the commissioner erred by not considering any evidence beyond the AMA Guidelines when determining the extent...

In Westling v. Hormel Foods Corp ., 810 NW2d 247 (Iowa 2012), claimant developed shoulder problems and what was originally disagnosed as a partial rotator cuff tear, which was followed by surgery.  The operative report noted significant fraying of the anterior and superior labrum, as well as inflammation along the subscapularis muscle, but no rotator cuff tear was found.  Claimant was released with no restrictions, and the surgeon concluded that the surgery did not cause claimant to have a permanent impairment.  Claimant subsequently retired. Dr. Mary Shook performed an IME for claimant, and Dr.Shook attributed pain to arthritis and not overuse.  She concluded that claimant's current symptoms are not from repetitive tasks due to work assignments.  Dr. Shook concluded there was a 2% impairment in claimant's right shoulder and 3% in the left shoulder, both caused by arthritis.  Claimant was found to have no permanent impairment at the commissioner level....

The Westling  case, decided on February 9, 2009, addressed the issue of whether claimant's work injury resulted in a permanent partial disability.  Claimant suffered an injury to his right shoulder while working for the employer, and had a debridement and acromionectomy.  He was returned to work without restrictions, worked for a few months, and retired from Hormel, where he had worked for thirty years. The deputy found that claimant had failed to establish a causal connection between his shoulder injury and permanent disability.  This decision was upheld by the commissioner, and Westling filed a rehearing request, asking the commissioner to decide whether the definition of permanent impairment in the AMA Guides  was synonymous with the judicial definition of functional disability.  The commissioner denied the request for rehearing, finding that the agency had relied on undisputed medical evidence that the claimant's work was not a cause of a permanent sh...