Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Interstate Power & Light Co v. Moyer , No. 22-1917 (Iowa App. Dec. 20, 2023) Claimant suffered a crush injury to his foot and was awarded permanent partial disability benefits.  Three years later, claimant filed for review-reopening and was awarded permanent total disability.  Following the initial injury to the foot, claimant developed back problems that ultimately led to the implantation of a  lumbar neurostimulator and an operation (a gastrocnemius release) on claimant's calf.  Claimant continued to have low back and hip pain.  Claimant also developed mental health problems, diagnosed as pain disorder with psychological factors, including major depressive disorder. Defendants' doctors found the mental health problems were not work-related, but claimant's IME doctor concluded that the depression was related to claimant's physical injuries. At hearing, defendants argued that an increased award was barred by res judicata and that permanent and total d...

  Stuart v. Dickten Masch Plastics, LLC , No. 23-0018 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant filed a review-reopening petition after she lost her job due to a plant closure.  Claimant had been "heavily" accommodated at work for her work-related disability, and was allowed to sit during the day and take breaks that  were not available to other workers.  She was unable to find work following the plant closure.  The commissioner ruled that when a worker loses her job as a result of a plant closure, she cannot show the required economic change regardless of any other factors preventing her from finding a new job and denied relief to claimant. At hearing, claimant testified that following the plant closure, she had attempting to find work, noting that she had sent out two dozen applications and  had only three responses, which were fruitless once the employers learned of her disability. Defendants presented testimony from a vocational expert regarding claimant's emp...

  Barry v. John Deere Dubuque Works , No. 22-1000 (Iowa App. May 24, 2023) Claimant suffered from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and was awarded an 11% whole person impairment rating following hearing.  Claimant subsequently developed additional problems with his bilateral hands and arms and sought review reopening based on changes in physical condition.  Dr. Mathew, who conducted an IME on the review reopening, concluded that claimant had additional permanent impairment and had also developed shoulder difficulties as a result of his work activities.  Additional restrictions were also imposed.  The agency concluded that claimant had not demonstrated a physical change in condition sufficient to justify additional benefits and the district court affirmed this holding.  The agency concluded that Dr. Mathew’s report was not credible because it was based on incorrect sections of the AMA Guides. The Court concluded that the agency had not abused its discretion ...

  ABF Freight System Inc. v. Hilliard , No. 21-0855 (Iowa App. Jan. 27, 2022) Claimant suffered a neck injury in 2016 and was awarded a 30% industrial disability.  He later filed a request for review-reopening and was awarded an additional 20% by the deputy and commissioner.  This finding was affirmed by the district court. On appeal, the employer argued that there had been no changes in claimant’s physical condition and posited that claimant’s physician had not placed him on restrictions.  The court finds that the decision of the agency finding that there had been a change in physical condition was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, claimant’s physician opined that claimant’s condition had declined since his surgery and that he had developed chronic, debilitating pain.  The doctor also explained that he did not impose restrictions because they “don’t work . . . In general, I don’t impose them if - unless absolutely necessary.”  The court find...

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 Verizon Business Network Services, Inc. v. McKenzie , No. 0-685 (Iowa App. Nov. 24, 2010), the Iowa Court of Appeals wrestled with issues involving review-reopening proceedings that had been addressed in Kohlhaas v. Hog Slat , 777 N.W.2d 387 (Iowa 2009).  The question raised in the case was whether the commissioner had used the correct standard in determining whether the claimant was entitled to an increase in benefits. Claimant suffered a back injury, and was awarded 25% industrial disability benefits at the initial arbitration hearing.  Following the hearing, claimant continued to have difficulties with her back, although she had gastric bypass surgery to reduce her weight in the interim.  She filed a review-reopening petition, and at the arbitration and appeal levels was found to be permanently and totally disabled.  There was a great deal of emphasis in these decisions on whether claimant's continuing problems had been anticipated at the time of the original...