Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Plummer , No. 14-0417 (Iowa App. Jan. 28, 2015), the court addressed an issue involving an employee who was admittedly off the clock when he suffered his injury, but who was assisting customers at the store at which he worked.  On the date of the injury, claimant had completed his shift clocked out and was shopping at the store.  When he was leaving, he and a co-worked assisted a customer.  While providing assistance, claimant slipped and fell.  He subsequently completed an incident report designed for customers rather than employees. The deputy concluded that because claimant was no longer on the clock, the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment.  On appeal, the court indicates that the commissioner did not specifically address the "off the clock" finding, but examined the causal connection between the fall and the subsequent medical treatment. The commissioner found that the visit to the physician four days af...

In Dunlap v. Action Warehouse, No. 11-1451 (Iowa App. Oct. 17, 2012), the court addressed issues of causal connection, permanency, temporary benefits, penalty and sanctions.  The issues concerning causal connection, extent of permanency and temporary benefits were fairly straightforward analyses based on substantial evidence principles.  The penalty and sanction issues are potentially more important. Dunlap was injured at work, and after a numerous struggles to obtain care, including an alternate medical care proceeding, he was set up with Dr. Prevo.  Dr. Prevo found that there was no permanency and further indicated the back problems were not related to his work.  Dr. Prevo was subpoenaed to a deposition and also provided with a subpoena duces tecum.  At the deposition, he refused to provide certain documents that had been subpoenaed.  Prevo refused to answer questions concerning disciplinary proceedings before the Iowa Board of Medicine.  At hea...

In Carter v. Alter Trading Corp. , No. 11-1697 (Iowa App. Oct. 17, 2012), the court decided a claim dealing with equitable apportionment and penalty benefits for failure to pay benefits pending equitable apportionment.  The fighting question was whether the apportionment of death benefits among his children and wife was equitable. Claimant was a native of Honduras and had a family in Honduras at the time he died as a result of an industrial accident.  That family consisted of his oldest son, Angel, his wife Carmen, and his daughter, Lidia. Claimant came to the US to work, and provided the family with support.  Claimant had a paramour in the US, Ruth, with whom he fathered a child, Sandra.  Claimant did not live with Ruth and Sandra, but provided them with support as well. When claimant was killed, both families sought payment of death benefits.  The deputy allocated 45% of death benefits to Carmen as surviving spouse, and 22% to Angel during the period of hi...

In Kent v. Diamond Shine Management Services, Inc. , No. 11-1041 (Iowa App. April 25, 2012), the Court of Appeals reiterated the importance of the substantial evidence standard in judicial review actions.  Mr. Kent had suffered injury to his bilateral shoulders, resulting in a 6% BAW rating to one shoulder, and a 4% BAW rating to the other shoulder, according to the IME doctor. Work restrictions were in the 40 pound occasional lifting category.  Claimant presented evidence that his reading and math skills were consistent with students in the upper elementary level.  Claimant also presented evidence from a vocational expert that he was unable to perform any activity in the labor market.  Following the end of the discovery period, claimant moved to add an odd lot claim, which was rejected by the hearing deputy. At the time of hearing, claimant was working, but had suffered a loss of income from $12.00 per hour to $7.50 per hour and was working only part-time.  Def...