Iowa Workers' Compensation

  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...

XPO Logistics v. Ivester , No. 23-1357 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2024) Claimant was found to have sustained permanent total disability from a back injury affecting both his left and right side.  Although defendants admitted that claimant had sustained an injury to his left back, they argued that the symptoms from the left-sided back injury had largely abated and claimant was not entitled to PTD based only on his symptoms to the left back.  Defendants argued that the symptoms to the left back, which arose following surgery to his left back, were not related to his work.  In finding permanent total disability, the deputy and commissioner relied on the unrefuted opinions of two experts, Dr. Mathew and Dr. Segal, that the "ongoing low back and lower extremity symptoms, including his right-side symptoms, are related to the work injury of June 8, 2016." On appeal, the employer argued that since the surgery was to the left side, symptoms on the right side with no immediate onset could...

  Regional Care Hospital Partners, Inc. v. Marrs No. 22-0959 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) This action, previously before the Court Regional Care Hosp. Part., Inc. v. Marrs , No. 19-2138 (Iowa App. Feb. 17, 2021) was a decision by the commissioner finding claimant had suffered a permanent total disability.  Defendants argued that because a FCE had placed claimant in the light work category, she was not permanently and totally disabled.  That FCE, however, had also indicated that claimant should limit sitting and standing to a rare basis, 1-5% of an 8 hour day.  Claimant had also testified that she spent most of the day laying down.  Defendants also aruged that a vocational report had found that jobs were available for claimant and claimant argues that the VE never met with her and that she could not perform the jobs listed by the VE.  Based on this, the deputy concluded claimant had an 80% industrial disability.  The commissioner awarded permanent and tota...

Medplast v. Pruis , No. 21-1650 (Iowa App. Dec. 7, 2022) In this action, claimant was found to have sustained injuries to his head, neck vision and mental health arising out of and in the course of his employment.  As a result of these injuries, he was found permanently and totally disabled.  The Court affirms on substantial evidence grounds. While climbing on a machine, claimant hit the right side of his head on a bar, which jarred his teeth and caused him to drop back to the floor.  He felt immediate pain in his neck, head and shoulders.  He went to the office and vomited while at work.  He was taken to the emergency room by his daughter when he returned home and was diagnosed with a very severe concussion and traumatic brain injury.  He was never able to return to work because of his continuing symptoms. Claimant treated for these injuries, but treatment was ultimately ended after neuropsychological assessments by Dr. Daniel Tranel.  He subsequently...

  Earling Grain and Fee v. Martin , No. 21-1446 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022) Claimant was found to be permanently and totally disabled by the commissioner, contrary to the employer's position that claimant had not reached MMI.  On appeal, the Court notes that its review was severely circumscribed and that the job of weighing the evidence was one for the commissioner. The Court finds that defendants raised the same arguments that had been raised before and rejected by the commissioner.  Because the findings of the agency with respect to claimant's reaching MMI were supported by substantial evidence, the decision of the agency was affirmed.

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...

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 Borkovec v. Dish Network , No. 17-0743 (Iowa App. May 16, 2018), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner which had held that a work injury was the cause of claimant's opioid dependency, but concluding that permanency was not ripe because claimant had not reached the end of his healing period.  The records presented at hearing indicated that if claimant had treatment for his addiction, his function might improve. The  hearing deputy had concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled and the appeal decision changed that to a running healing period.  Following a petition for judicial review, the district court reversed the commissioner's decision and found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled.  The Court of Appeals reinstates the decision of the commissioner. Claimant was involved in a serious auto accident and was provided  large impairment ratings by the doctors who opined on the issue.  Dr. Kuhnlein c...

Following a significant accident in which claimant injured his hand, shoulder and neck when a sealing clamp of a machine closed on his hand, Allen Conell sought payment for an active and passive prosthetic device.  The commissioner denied the passive prosthetic hand, but the Court of Appeals, following the decision of the district court, reversed the decision of the agency.  Nestle USA v. Conell , No. 17-0267 (Iowa App. Feb. 7, 2018). Claimant had originally been awarded a passive prosthetic hand following the injury, but the commissioner reversed this award finding that providing the passive prosthetic hand in addition to an active prosthetic hand violated the language of section 85.27(1), which only requires that "one set of permanent prosthetic devices" be provided. The commissioner held that claimant was only entitled to one prosthetic device per entitlement and that having an active and passive device violated this requirement.  The district court reversed, find...

In a case litigated by Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga, the Court in JBS Swift and Co. v. Ochoa , No. 15-0840 (Iowa Dec. 30, 2016) affirmed that under the 2004 amendments to the workers' compensation statute, a claimant could receive a first award of permanent partial disability benefits and then, based on a new injury, receive a permanent total disability award and that these awards can run concurrently.  The Court affirmed the action of the Iowa Court of Appeals, which had held that the general assembly removed the barriers to collecting two streams of benefits at the same time, so long as there were two separate injuries and the second injury resulted in permanent total disability benefits. Claimant suffered an initial hernia, which was found to be the cause of  70% industrial disability. She returned to work following this injury and subsequently developed neck and shoulder difficulties.  As a result of these problems, she left work and was subsequently ter...

In Bridgestone/Firestone v. Jackman , No. 15-2007 (Iowa App. Nov. 9, 2016), the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the award of permanent total disability, finding that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner.  On appeal, only the award was contested, the defendants having conceded that claimant's back and neck injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The court finds that the factors of industrial disability were explicitly considered in the decision of the deputy, which was affirmed by the commissioner.  The court deferred to the commissioner's finding that claimant's vocational expert was more credible than defendants' expert.  The court also noted that claimant's failure to seek other employment was not, in light of all other factors, enough to defeat the finding of permanent total disability. Claimant was represented by Martin Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga.

In Jack Cooper Transport Co. v. Jones , No. 15-0960 (Iowa App. April 6, 2016), the commissioner concluded that a truck driver who suffered a back injury was permanently and totally disabled.  In the decision, the causation determination and restrictions of the IME physician, Dr. Koprivica, were accepted over the opinions of Dr. Boarini or Dr. Ciccarelli.  The district court affirmed the PTD award on substantial evidence grounds. Noting that the issue of causation was within the realm of medical expert testimony, the court concluded that there was substantial evidence to support the finding that claimant sustained a permanent injury.  The court also concluded that the finding of permanent total disability was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.  The court noted that claimant was not able to return to work after the back injury.  Dr. Koprivica restricted claimant from driving a truck, which had been the only work performed by the claimant.   ...

In Gleeson Constructors and Engineers, LLC v. Madrigal , No. 14-1467 (Iowa App. Jan. 13, 2016), the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of permanent total disability benefits on substantial evidence grounds. Claimant was a Mexican national who had three semesters of college in Mexico, but who was not fluent in English.  He suffered an episode at work in 2007 where his back locked.  He was placed on light duty and continued this work until he had surgery in 2009 and quit his job.  Physicians and therapists believed the surgery was successful and there was no objective physical impairment to his back.  Claimant testified to the extreme pain, loss of strength, inability to sleep and jerking in his left leg that occurred following the surgery. The court indicates that the subjective degree of pain made claimant's credibility an issue.  Defendants also alleged that claimant had "a history of attempting to avoid work."  Three functional capacity evaluations w...

Claimant in Sterling Commercial Roofing, Inc. v. Berzle , No. 15-0351 (Iowa App. Dec. 23, 2015), sustained a shoulder injury at work.  On substantial evidence grounds, the Court of Appeals concluded that the commissioner's decision finding a permanent disability that arose out of claimant's work activities was supported by substantial evidence, as the commissioner had considered the competing evidence on this issue. The employer also argued that the determination claimant was permanently and totally disabled was illogical, irrational and wholly unjustifiable.  The Court noted that claimant was a 56 year old roofer with restrictions of lifting no more than 2 pounds, with difficulties in school and no skills other than in roofing.  This was not an irrational finding by the commissioner, according to the court, and the decision was affirmed.

In Archer Daniels Midland v. Warren , No. 14-0956 (Iowa App. April 22, 2015), the court affirmed an agency decision finding permanent total disability.  The court rejected defendants' claim that claimant's plan to retire, which were made before the injury occurred, precluded an award of permanent total disability. Claimant had a severe, preexisting injury to his right hip.  Despite this, claimant was able to work steadily from 1969, when the injury occurred, through 2001, when he began to work for ADM.  His health at that time was said to be excellent and he was under no restrictions.  Claimant began to suffer pain in his hip and went to his doctor  in January of 2009.  He was treated symptomatically for over a year and the possibility of a total hip arthroplasty was discussed in September of 2010.  The total hip replacement was conducted on February 22, 2011.  Claimant returned to work but was told that his restrictions could not be accommodate...

In Menard, Inc. v. Schneberger , No. 14-0682 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner concluding that claimant's mental health problems arose out of and in the course of his employment.  At the commissioner level, the employer stipulated to a physical injury to the shoulder, but denied that claimant's panic attacks and depression were related to the work injury.  Dr. Seamands, claimant's doctor for her psychological problems, noted that claimant had not had any history of depression other than situational depression under acute stressors. Claimant met with Dr. Donald Gammel for an evaluation requested by the employer.  Dr. Gammel was an occupational health doctor and he opined that the psychological difficulties were not related to the work injury.  He stated that the depression was a normal and expected manifestation of a preexisting disorder.  Dr. Seamands indicated that claimant did not have a preexisting con...

In Hydecker Wheatland Co. v. Bruce , No. 14-0492 (Iowa App. Jan. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirms an award of permanent total disability on substantial evidence grounds.  Claimant had suffered electrical burns to his hands, which precluded his employment in the competitive workforce. The court noted that claimant had come in contact with a live electrical wire, and that the voltage entered his body through his right hand and exited through his left hand. This caused severe burns and nerve damage.  Claimant's fingers were amputated and there was removal of additional areas of burned skin to facilitate skin grafting.  Following the procedures, numerous ratings of impairment were provided, all of which concluded that claimant had substantial impairment. Claimant's vocational expert, Kent Jayne, found that claimant was not able to return to his past work as an electrical lineman and concluded that his low test scores on educational achievement "presented a dire voc...

In Marten Transportation, Ltd. v. Bowes , No. 13-0528 (Iowa App. April 16, 2014), the court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court, which itself had reversed the commissioner's permanent total disability award. Claimant was a truck driver, who injured her back and elbow when she fell from her truck.  Claimant sought industrial disability, but did not rely on the odd lot doctrine in attempting to determine the extent of her injury.  In the arbitration decision, the deputy cited to a case which referenced the odd lot doctrine.  The deputy concluded that claimant was unable to perform a sufficient quantity and quality of work to remain employed in a well-established branch of the labor market.  Defendants appealed, and the commissioner affirmed. On rehearing, defendants claimed that the commissioner had erroneously applied the odd lot doctrine.  The commissioner stated that the  odd lot doctrine had not been considered, either at the arbitrat...

In Gits Mfg. v. Frank , 855 NW2d 195 (Iowa 2014), the Supreme Court once again noted that the determination evidentiary issues, including medical causation and the extent of industrial disability, is within the peculiar province of the commissioner, and absent unusual circumstances, should be determinative on appellate review.  In doing so, the court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals, which had concluded that substantial evidence did not support the finding of permanent and total disability. The agency concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled under the odd lot rule.  This determination was reversed by the Court of Appeals, which concluded that substantial evidence did not support the agency's finding.  The Supreme Court noted that substantial evidence supports an agency's decision even if the interpretation of the evidence may be open to a fair difference of opinion, citing Arndt v. City of LeClaire , 728 N.W.2d 389, 393 (Iowa 2007). Th...

In Con-E-C v. Nowatzke , No. 14-0470 (Iowa App. Oct. 1, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed a finding of permanent total disability based on substantial evidence.  The court, in its initial statement of the case notes that review of final agency action is "severely circumscribed", that nearly all disputes are won or lost at the agency level, that judgment calls are within the province of the agency, and that it is the commissioner and not the courts, that weight the evidence and assesses credibility. Claimant suffered a low back injury while working for the employer.  The agency concluded that the injury was causally related to claimant's work and concluded that claimant was an odd lot worker.  The court ultimately affirms the agency based on the district court's thorough and well-reasoned ruling, without additional analysis.  Citing Iowa Ct. R. 21.26.