Iowa Workers' Compensation

Tweeten dba Tweeten Farms v. Tweeten , 999 N.W.2d 270 (Iowa Dec. 22, 2023) In this action reviewing the district court decision, three issues were presented: Does the statutory bar under section 85.39(9) of the Code preclude further benefits following a compromise settlement between claimant and the Second Injury Fund? Does the discovery rule toll the statute of limitations following amendments to section 85.26(1) of the Iowa Code? How do amendments to section 85.39(2) of the Code affect reimbursement for independent medical exams?           The Supreme Court concluded that a compromise settlement with the Fund does not bar an action against the employer.  The Court further finds that, in actions based on a traumatic event, the legislative changes to 85.26(1) made in 2017 effectively eliminates the discovery rule.  Because of the decision on this third issue, the final issue concerning independent medical evaluations was not re...

  Liford v. Christensen Farms and Second Injury Fund , No. 22-1747 (Iowa App. Aug. 9, 2023) Claimant was denied benefits from the Fund for a left knee injury because this injury was found to be a sequella of an earlier right knee injury and not a separate and distinct second injury.  The left knee injury was traced by the physicians to claimant's "babying" his right knee following an injury to that knee.  The deputy found the left knee injury was a sequela, based on the opinions of Dr. Vincent and Dr. Kuhnlein.  These findings were affirmed by the commissioner and the district court. On appeal, claimant argues that the underlying decisions incorrectly interpreted Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa , 943 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Iowa 2020).  Claimant argues that Gumm should only be applied where a cumulative injury stems from the aggravation of an earlier injury, not in cases where a sequela injury develops.  The Court rejects this view of Gumm , finding that a secon...

Blake v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 20-1382 (Iowa App. Sept. 22, 2021) Claimant suffered an injury at work and alleged that she had suffered a first injury in the form of eye problems.  Claimant suffered from Graves disease, and the question in the case was whether she had suffered a qualifying first injury.  The commissioner found that claimant's eye problems were not a qualifying first injury   and dismissed the claim against the Fund.  Claimant appeals. Claimant argued that under Gregory , claimant's eye problems were a permanent disability and thus a qualifying injury.  The court found that Gregory   was inapplicable because in that case an earlier hand injury combined with injuries to other unenumerated body parts was before the court whereas in Blake , the condition was an unenumerated condition leading to problems with a scheduled member, in this case, the eye.   The court noted that in Nelson , the court had noted that an injury...

The Court of Appeals, in Ginther v. Second Injury Fund , No. 17-0867 (Iowa App. June 6, 2018), affirmed the decision of the agency that claimant had not demonstrated a qualifying injury for second injury fund purposes.  Claimant's first injury was plantar fasciitis of the right foot.  Dr. Sassman had concluded that no ratable impairment existed for plantar fasciitis, but found that a 3% whole person impairment for pain was appropriate.  The deputy found that claimant did not have a qualifying first injury because Dr. Sassman's opinion that there was a 3% rating for pain was unconvincing.  The deputy also noted that since the rating was to the body as a whole, this was not a qualifying injury for SIF purposes.  The commissioner affirmed. The court found that because Dr. Sassman did not find that claimant had suffered a loss of use of the right foot, but had rather provided a whole person rating based on pain, he did not establish that he had lost the use of his...

In Grahovic v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 14-1295 (Iowa App.  June 10, 2015), the court was presented with a situation where claimant sought review of an earlier denial of a claim against the Fund.  Claimant had suffered multiple scheduled injuries, but liability of the SIF had been denied previously.  The court found that a review reopening was improper in the circumstances of the case. Claimant had a left leg injury in 1997, and a right leg injury in 2001.  He settled a claim against the Fund in 2003 on a closed file basis.  Claimant later had an injury to his left knee in 2005.  He brought a claim against the Fund with the left knee injury of 2005 being the second injury and the right leg injury of 2001 being the first injury.  He settled with the employer and went to hearing against the Fund.  The agency found that claimant failed to prove his left leg injury and even if he did, had failed to prove that this caused permanent disability...

In Bolton v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 13-1620 (Iowa App. July 30, 2014), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner finding that claimant had not demonstrated a first injury for Second Injury Fund purposes, and thus was not entitled to benefits against the Fund.  Claimant argued that he had a first injury to his left knee in 1982, and noted that an IME had "extrapolated" a 1% impairment rating to the left leg.  At hearing, claimant admitted that he did not suffer any difficulties with his knee until after he began working for the employer some 18 years after the incident.  The court concluded that "there is, quite simply, nothing in the record to tie Bolton's complaints of knee pain to the 1982 injury until after he filed for workers' compensation benefits in this matter." The court noted that the 1% rating was assigned based on subjective complaints of pain, and noted that there were never any restrictions given as a result of ...

In Leavens v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 11-1636 (Iowa App. June 27, 2012), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner that claimant had not established a compensable SIF claim.  Presented to the court were issues involving the preclusive effect of an earlier settlement agreement, a question concerning rehearing, and the overall question of whether claimant had established a second injury. On the second injury, which was a bilateral upper extremity injury, claimant and the employer entered into what the court described as a compromise settlement under section 85.35(3).  This settlement was based on a 12/20/06 cumulative injury.  Claimant later filed a claim against the Fund, alleging a first injury from 2000, and the second injury from 12/20/06.  Benefits were awarded against the Fund at the hearing level.  Subsequent to this time, claimant filed a rehearing petition, seeking additional industrial disability.  Apparently much ...

In Buttrey v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 1-678 (Iowa App. Oct. 5, 2011), the court of appeals affirmed the action of the district court, which had reversed the decision of the commissioner and found that claimant had established a second qualifying injury for second injury fund purposes.  The district court had concluded that the commissioner's election to give more weight to one of two competing expert opinions was based on facts that were incorrect and not supported by the record.  The district court had specifically found that additional reasons would need to be given for choosing Dr. Reagen's opinion over that of Dr. Koenig.  The court of appeals discusses the facts in the case in some detail, and recites the district court's decision finding that Dr. Koenig had clearly indicated that the second injury was work related, while Dr. Reagen had only found that there was no causation based on a description of claimant's symptoms from defendants' attorney.  Th...

The case of Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Armstrong , No. 1-280 (Iowa App. May 25, 2011), although discussing primarily the question of whether claimant's injury extended into the body as a whole, potentially broadens the scope of Fund claims to include claims involving the same extremity, such as a right hand and right arm or left foot and left leg.  These types of injuries, under Anderson v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa, 262 N.W.2d 789 (Iowa 1978), had previously been found not compensable by the Supreme Court. In Armstrong, claimant's first injury was to the left foot.  In 2005, his left leg was crushed, resulting in further injury.  The treating doctor also found that there was a skin injury, but this doctor later opined that this injury was confined to the lower extremity.  There had also been a finding that claimant had a neuropathy, but again the treating doctor and IME doctor found that this did not extend into the body as a whole. The Fund argued that clai...

In Hennigar v. Second Injury Fund , No 09-0343 (Iowa App. Jan. 20, 2011), the court concluded that claimant had failed to establish a first injury, and had also failed to demonstrate a second injury, leading to a denial of Second Injury Fund benefits.  The commissioner had earlier denied Fund benefits. Claimant had an eye condition which she alleged as a first injury.  Three doctors had concluded that there was no permanent impairment as a result of the eye injury, and a fourth doctor, who had originally concluded that there was a 1% impairment, recanted this opinion when deposed.  Claimant presented the testimony of herself and her daughter, both of whom testified that claimant had watering in her eye, and her vision had deteriorated.  Testimony was also presented that claimant had difficulty driving. The commissioner concluded that claimant's eye condition did not result in a permanent disability and loss of use to either eye.  Because there was no loss of...

In Waldinger Corporation v. Mettler , No. 0-647 (Iowa App. Nov. 24, 2010), the court addressed issues of apportionment in scheduled member cases, healing period issues, and issues involving the Second Injury Fund.  Of particular interest is the court's approach to healing period, which appears to deny the possibility of intermittent healing periods. Claimant was in the military and suffered a number of injuries prior to returning to his work as a plumber at Waldinger.  Before starting that employment, claimant was provided a 20% impairment rating from VA for leg injuries, and 10% for right knee injuries.  Considering impairments to his spine, as well as tinnitus, claimant was found to have a 70% total impairment, which entitled him to $1100 per month from the VA. Claimant was able to perform his work with Waldinger when he began working.  Over time, he developed more problems with his right ankle, for which he had four surgeries.  This injury forced him out ...

The decision in Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Kratzer , 778 N.W.2d 42 (Iowa 2010) followed close on the heals of the decision in Gregory v. Fund , which addressed similar issues. In Kratzer , claimant suffered an injury to both legs and lower back in 1994, which ultimately resulted in a decision by the commissioner, affirmed on appeal, of a 20% industrial disability. In 2002, claimant had another injury to her left leg, which was settled with the employer just before hearing. The arbitration decision found a first and second injury, and awarded 40% industrial disability. On appeal before the commissioner, the finding of first and second injuries was maintained, but the award was increased to permanent total disability under the odd-lot doctrine. On judicial review, the district court concluded that although claimant's first injury to the right leg was a qualifying injury, the injury to the left leg in 2002 was not because the same member was injured in the 1994 accident (a bi...

In Gregory v. Second Injury Fund , 775 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 2010), the court addressed a number of issues that arise repeatedly in Fund cases which had not been addressed previously by the appellate courts. In Gregory , claimant suffered a first injury to both arms (bilateral carpal tunnel). At the same time she had bilateral injuries to her shoulders resulting in subacromial decompressions and distal clavicle excisions in both shoulders. She later fractured her right foot, and filed an action against the Fund. The workers' compensation commissioner concluded that an action against the Fund was not appropriate because Ms. Gregory's injuries extended beyond her extremities and into the body. The commissioner found that since this was a body as a whole injury, Fund benefits were not appropriate. The court noted that the Fund was conceived to encourage the employment of disabled persons by making the current employer responsible only for the disability the current employer c...