Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc. , No. 24-1991 (Iowa App. Oct. 1 2025) Claimant suffered an alleged work injury.  Prior to this injury, claimant had a lengthy history of injury, which had resulted in a 20 pound lifting restriction prior to the time he began working for the employer. In his position with the employer, claimant was required to lift between 25 and 50 pounds.  Claimant tripped while at work, fell to the cemet and hit his head.  He claimed injuries to his low back, leg and right ankle.  He was diagnosed with right sided sciatic radicular pain and lumbago with sciatica.  A CT scan desmonstrated severe degenerative disc disease.  Surgery was recommended by the surgeon chosen by the employer who related the surgery to claimant's work injury. A DME found that claimant's proposed back surgery was not related to the work injury, but to claimant's underlying conditions. The DME concluded claimant had back strain, with no permanent impai...

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 Cooper v. Kirkwood Community College , No. 11-1755 (Iowa App. Feb. 13, 2013), the court affirmed the decision of the commissioner that claimant's injury did not arise out of or in the course of employment.  The case had been before the Court of Appeals previously, at which time the court concluded that claimant was required to wait until the agency had made a determination on rehearing before filing a petition for judicial review.  When a subsequent petition was filed, the district court concluded that the petition had been timely filed, but found that claimant's conditions did not arise out of her employment. Defendants first argued that because the second petition for judicial review was filed until after the dismissal of the first petition, it had been untimely filed.  The court disagreed, and indicated that because of the earlier interlocutory appeal, the 20 day "deemed denied" period for the rehearing was tolled pending the decision of the district court and...