Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Tuttle v. Archer Daniels Midland Co. , No. 23-1941 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025) In this unusual case, the deputy ordered claimant to reimburse her employer $3900 for allegedly harassing conduct in the service of a subpoena on a doctor.  Claimant alleges the sanction was a nullity because the agency lacked the authority to adjudicate subpoenas.  The Court disagrees and affirms the commissioner's sanction. The Court had earlier addressed this case and had remanded to the district court to determine whether all administrative remedies had been exhausted and to determine whether review of agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  The district court found administrative remedies adequate and indicated claimant must exhaust such remedies before proceeding. Because claimant had not appealed to the commissioner, there was still a remedy to be exhausted.   The case arose when claimant served a subpoena  on the employer's expert.  ADM subsequently soug...

  Archer Daniels Midland v. Williams , No. 22-2075 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023)  Claimant had an injury to the shoulder which he claimed extended beyond the shoulder to the body as a whole.  During the course of litigation, the Supreme Court decided Deng and Chavez , which addressed the issues concerning the shoulder that applied in this litigation.  At the district court level, Claimant shifted his approach to indicate that he had suffered a shoulder/arm injury, which should have been treated industrially.  Because Deng and Chavez had not been decided by the courts while claimant's case was being litigated, and this was the only issue raised before the commissioner, no decision was reached by the agency on the shoulder/arm issue. The Court concludes that error was not preserved, as claimant did not pursue the shoulder/arm issue until he reached the district court.  The district court had concluded that claimant preserved the issue because "the parties have ...

  Schoenberger v. Zephyr Aluminum Products No. 22-1613 (App. April 12, 2023) Claimant suffered an injury to his left shoulder, resulting in a rotator cuff repair.  Testing demonstrated tha tclaimant had ulnar neuropathy at the left elbow, which an IME found was a sequela to the original injury.  The deputy found claimant failed to demonstrate an injury that extended into the body as whole and 76 weeks of benefits were awarded due to the shoulder injury.  Claimant appealed, arguing that he had established an industrial disability.  The appeal decision failed to specifically address whether his injury qualified as industrial because it constituted a combined shoiulder and arm injury.  The district court found that error on this issue had not been preserved as claimant had not "previously and explicitly raised the question of a combined shoulder and arm injury or secured a ruling thereon." On appeal, claimant contended that raising his industrial disability 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...

United Fire and Casualty v. Cedars Sinai Medical Center , No. 15-1769 (Iowa App.  Dec. 21, 2016) address an issue not commonly before the courts - the reasonable costs of medical care.  The hospital in this case charged more than $3 million in medical fees for treatment of an injured construction worker.  The insurer filed an action under section 85.27(3) arguing that the commissioner erred in selecting the medical-fee reviewer, refusing to allow United Fire to submit certain evidence and accepting certain filings from Cedars Sinai.  United Fire also alleges that Cedars Sinai did not have standing and that there was a accord and satisfaction.  Because United Fire failed to preserve error and cannot show the medical fee dispute process should be repeated, the commissioner's action and action of the district court is affirmed. Following claimant's over 100 day stay in the hospital, the hospital, through a third party notified the agency of its intent to use the ...

Stark Construction v. Lauterwasser , No. 15-1786 (Iowa App. 2016) is a claim that had earlier been decided by the Court of Appeals.  In the earlier decision, the appellate court reversed the district court's opinion that claimant was not an employee and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  On remand, the district court remanded the claim to the commissioner for issuance of a decision on a timely notice issue.  Claimant appealed the remand order, arguing that the employer failed to preserve error at the agency level for judicial review.  The employer argued that claimant's appeal was untimely because claimant filed an improper 1.904(2) order to toll the time for filing notice of appeal. The court first addressed the issue of the timeliness of claimant's appeal.  In this case, the appeal was filed beyond 30 days, but it was filed within 30 days of the district court's ruling on the 1.904(2) motion.  The court finds that a proper...

The passage of HF 2581 in 2004 eliminated the provision that overlapping streams of benefits were impermissible under section 85.36(9)(c) of the Code.   In Drake University v. Davis , 769 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 2009), the Supreme Court held that in a situation where a claimant had a PPD award followed by a subsequent award of PTD benefits, both benefits could be received simultaneously, because the language of section 85.34(7) of the Code, which addressed issues of apportionment, did not reference awards under section 85.34(3) of the Code, only awards under section 85.34(2). In JBS Swift v. Ochoa, No. 15-0840 (Iowa App. May 25, 2016), the Court of Appeals followed Davis  and affirmed the commissioner's award of an overlapping 70% industrial disability and a subsequent PTD award.  The court noted that the awards were both supported by substantial evidence and indicated, in discussing Davis , that "we are not at liberty to overrule controlling supreme court precedent." ...

In Pharaoh-Carlson v. Hy-Vee, Inc.,  No. 13-1446 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015), plaintiff alleged that the jury instruction provided by the district court misstated the law regarding the workers' compensation public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine.  Plaintiff argued that he was discharged for filing a workers' compensation claim while defendant argued that the discharge was due to a no-call, no show on the part of plaintiff. The court first noted that plaintiff had waived its objection to the jury instruction because the objection to the instruction, although made by plaintiff, was insufficiently specific.  Despite this finding, the court went on to address the merits of the decision.  The instruction to the jury, among other things, indicated that employment at will employees could be discharged for any reason, that it is against public policy to discharge workers for pursuing their right under the workers' compensation act, and indicated it was no...

In West Des Moines Community School District v. Fry , No. 13-1391 (Oct. 19, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed the commissioner's order finding that claimant had suffered an injury that had both traumatic and cumulative aspects.  Claimant had suffered two traumatic injuries at work, one in 2007 causing injury to his left hip, collarbone and left shoulder and the second incident in 2008 causing injury to the left hip and SI joint.  Claimant initially filed claims relating to both injuries, but subsequently dismissed the 2007 claim.  With respect to the 2008 claim, claimant alleged that the injury was both acute and cumulative. The arbitration decision rejected the findings of Dr. Stoken because she had lumped together the two injuries from 2007 and 2008.  On appeal, the commissioner reversed, relying on the opinions of claimant's family physician, Dr. Honsey, as well as Dr. Stoken's IME.  The commissioner noted that Dr. Honsey had concluded that claimant's pa...

In Saltern v. HNI Corp. , No. 13-1193 (Iowa App. Aug. 13, 2014), the parties agreed to settle the case on an agreement for settlement basis, with defendants agreeing to pay penalty benefits for the delay in paying benefits.  After the AGFS was filed, claimant filed a bad faith claim and filed a motion for partial summary judgment urging the court to find that there was no reasonable basis to deny and delay benefits.  Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment, urging dismissal.  The district court denied claimant's motion and granted defendants' motion. Defendants argued that the facts in the workers' compensation case were such that there was a question of whether claimant slipped on ice in the parking lot, or whether the fall was idiopathic in nature.  Claimant argued that defendants' action of agreeing to payment of penalty demonstrated that there was no reasonable basis for its action in denying and delaying payment of benefits.  Claimant argued ...

Wal-Mart Stores v. Henle , Nos. 13-0366 & 13-0721 (Iowa App. January 9, 2014) involved a claimant who had a serious injury when a sixty pound stack of plastic totes  fell 15 feet, striking her head and left shoulder.  Following treatment, claimant returned to work at Wal-Mart, working four hour days.  She was continued as a full-time employee and received partial disability benefits.  She often missed work because of her headaches, and these days were considered as excused absences, "which was an exception to the company's usual attendance policy. The deputy found claimant permanently and totally disabled and ordered benefits beginning on May 30, 2006, "but for those dates when the employer has provided claimant with accommodated employment."  The claim was affirmed on appeal.  Wal-Mart filed a petition for judicial review, and claimant moved for entry of judgment under section 86.42.  Ultimately, the decision was affirmed and the judgment was en...

In GITS Manufacturing Co. v. Frank , No. 13-0665 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2014), the Court of Appeals, taking a very aggressive stance on substantial evidence, concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant was an odd lot employee was not supported by substantial evidence, largely because claimant had not sought other employment following her injury. Claimant suffered a cumulative lung injury from her work as a welder at GITS.  The evidence demonstrated that claimant was limited to sedentary work, and the deputy concluded that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that she could complete job retraining and go back to work at her age and with her physical condition.  The deputy found that claimant was an odd lot employee, and this finding was affirmed on appeal., and by the district court. The court noted that the issue before it was whether the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.  The court first addressed the odd lot doctrine, an...

In Staff Management v. Jiminez , 839 NW2d 640 (Iowa 2013), the Iowa Supreme Court addressed an issue that they had elliptically addressed in the past - the right of undocumented workers to receive workers' compensation benefits.  The court concluded that Iowa's statute did not exclude undocumented workers from coverage and also found that the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (IRCA) did not act to preempt state laws governing workers' compensation.  Three amicus curiae  briefs were filed in Jimenez  by the Workers' Injury Law and Advocacy Group, the Iowa Association of Justice's Workers' Compensation Core Group and the National Employment Law Project.  Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne and Ozga wrote the amicus brief for the Core Group. The factual situation in Jimenez  involved a worker who was documented at the time she began employment, but who became undocumented during the time that she worked for the employer.  She was injured at work, and...

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...

The Court of Appeals addressed the issue of penalty under the 2009 revisions to the penalty statute in Podgorniak v. Asplundh Tree Service , No. 12-0644 (Iowa App. Jan. 24, 2013).  Claimant had been awarded a running healing period, and after defendants' physicians opined that claimant had reached maximum medical improvement, healing period benefits were terminated.  The arbitration decision found that penalty benefits were appropriate, and this action was reversed by the commissioner.  The commissioner's decision found that the action of the employer was "fairly debatable."  The district court affirmed the denial of penalty. The court first found that an issue concerning the specific amounts and dates of healing period benefits that were due had not been preserved by claimant and did not address this issue. The court discusses the 2009 amendments to the statute, and first considered an argument that since the words "fairly debatable" were not included i...

In O'Reilly Auto Parts v. Alexander , No. 11-1864 (Iowa App. Oct. 31, 2012), the court addressed two issues.  The first was whether claimant's injury arose out of and in the course of employment.  The second was whether the commissioner had erred in sua sponte entering an insurance carrier into the proceedings.  The court affirmed on both counts. Claimant contended he had suffered a back injury while unloading a tote from a truck and twisting his body to take a step.  Injury reports did not reflect the date of injury actually claimed in the action.  Claimant was not sent to see the company doctor, and did not initially explain the mechanism of injury to his family doctor.  Dr. Ray concluded that claimant had sustained a worsening of pain from the work accident.  Claimant subsequently had a stroke and explained at hearing that he had problems with memory.  The claim was denied by the deputy but the commissioner reversed and concluded that claima...

In Menard v. Jones, No. 12-0027 (Iowa App. Sept. 6, 2012), the court of appeals addressed two issues.  The defendants appealed a question of whether claimant had reached maximum medical improvement, and claimant appealed a question relating to part-time.  On rate, the court in Swiss Colony v. Deutmeyer  had indicated that in part-time cases, there needed to be evidence of what type of work was part-time in the industry in which the claimant was engaged.    The court in Jones indicated that the fact that claimant was hired to work on 4 hours a day (and that the employer admitted he was part-time), was not enough to actually establish that he was only performing part time work under the statute.  Since there was no evidence in the record to establish what full time employment was in claimant's field, the court concluded that the case had to be remanded on this issue. On the maximum medical improvement issue, both the treating physician and IME doctor had re...

In one of the more detailed discussions of substantial evidence in workers' compensation cases, the Iowa Supreme Court, in Cedar Rapids Community School District v. Pease , 807 NW2d 839 (Iowa 2011), reversed the decision of the Iowa Court of Appeals that had denied benefits to claimant.  Pease is a classic example of the weighing of the medical evidence that the commissioner must do in reaching a conclusion.  In Ms. Pease's case, the agency concluded that claimant's claim of altered gait, back injuries, and depression were supported by the evidence, and awarded permanent total disability.  The district court affirmed on these issues, but the court of appeals reversed, finding that substantial evidence did not support the findings of the agency. Ms. Pease's original injury was to her right ankle, and she complained that this injury caused her to have an altered gait, contributing to injuries to her back and left ankle.  She also alleged that as a result of these in...

In Wal-Mart Stores v. Johnson , No. 10-0358 (Iowa App. Jan. 20, 2011), the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of permanency benefits awarded by the commissioner.  Claimant's treating physician, Dr. Hlavin, had concluded that claimant's neck, shoulder and arm problems were due to her work activities.  The employer denied benefits, and sought to have claimant attend a defense medical examination with Dr. Boulden.  Claimant refused to attend, arguing that there was no right to an 85.39 examination in a denied claim.  The employer filed a motion to compel  attendance, and in the meantime, Dr. Boulden denied causation in a records review evaluation. The deputy denied defendants' request for an 85.39 exam, and a motion to reconsider on the same subject was denied.  At hearing, the deputy made an oral ruling that the employer was not entitled to the 85.39 exam.  The deputy found a 40% industrial loss.  In the written decision, the 85.39 issue was not ...