Iowa Workers' Compensation

P.M. Lattner Manufacturing Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a right shoulder injury in 2009, which ultimately resulted in a commutation settlement for 29.6% of the body as a whole.  Claimant subsequently suffered another injury to the right shoulder in 2018, following changes to the Code which made shoulder injuries unscheduled.  At hearing, claimant was awarded a 19% functional impairment for the injury to his right shoulder.  The employer argued that the entire award should be credited given that the earlier commutation resulted in a greater award than the second right shoulder injury.  The commissioner rejected this argument, but noted that defendants could arguably be entitled to a credit for the functional portion of the injury.  In this case, however, defendants failed to prove the amount of the credit and thus no credit was awarded. A secondary issue was also presented regarding payment of the IME.  The commissioner awa...

  Harrell v. Denver Findley & Sons, Inc. and Second Injury Fund , No. 21-0827 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022) In this action, the deputy originally concluded that claimant was permanently and totally disabled with respect to the SIF.  The deputy found that under 85.34(2)(x), the Fund was not entitled to a credit because of a prior left knee surgery, the only evidence of which was raised at hearing by claimant, who noted that he had previously had a left total knee replacement.  No medical evidence or rating was provided concerning this injury.  On appeal, the commissioner found that the Fund was entitled to the credit, based on his own reading of the AMA Guides.  The commissioner reduced the permanent total disability award to 75% despite the fact that the parties had not raised this as an issue. On judicial review, the district court found that the Fund was entitled to credit, but remanded the case to the agency, finding that the commissioner should not have modi...

In Huff v. CRST Expedited , No. 18-0336 (Iowa App. March 6, 2019), the court addressed an alternate medical care dispute and remanded the claim to the agency for a determination of certain facts relating to claimant's access to certain appliances and services.  The court concludes that the absence of medical evidence is not a bright line bar to an award of alternate medical care, but finds the agency must  make further factual findings. Claimant had a catastrophic accident, rendering him wheelchair bound.  Following his accident, he lived with his son in a second floor apartment, but ultimately requested ADA compliant living arrangement, a handicap van and a home healthcare provider.  The agency initially denied the alternate medical care application because claimant had not presented medical support for his alternate care requests.  Claimant later filed a second alternate medical care request, which contained an assessment from the Area Agency on Aging relati...

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...

In Quaker Oats v. Farar , No. 13-0195 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2013), the court of appeals affirmed the commissioner's award of healing period, PPD and medical benefits, finding that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.  Defendants had argued that claimant's knee problems were due to arthritis rather than his work, and that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  The court noted that although the weight of the medical evidence was to the contrary, the agency held that claimant's injury had arisen out of and in the course of employment, and noted that the opinion of Dr. Manshadi was sufficient to support a finding of causation.  The court also found that substantial evidence supported the fact that claimant's DVT had arisen as a result of the knee injury and knee replacement, although again there was conflicting evidence.  The employer had also asked for the case to be remanded to the agency to make a more complete rec...