Iowa Workers' Compensation

 In American Home Assurance v. Liberty Mutual Fire Insurance Co. , No. 20-0769 (Iowa App. July 21, 2021), claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits and was awarded those benefits against American Home, which American home paid.  Claimant later filed a review-reopening petition, at which point American Home discovered it was not the insurer on the claim as of the time of injury.  American then filed an application for payment of benefits under 85.21.  Claimant later filed a petition for contribution under section 85.21, seeking repayment of all benefits paid from Liberty Mutual, the insurer on the claim as of the time of injury. Liberty argued that they were only responsible for benefits paid after an 85.21 order had been issued. The deputy found Liberty was on the hook for all benefits paid, but the commissioner partially reversed, finding that "because American Home failed to seek an Iow Code section 85.21 consent order prior to the arbitration hearing, Libe...

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...

The case of Burton v. Hilltop Care Center , 813 NW2d 250 (Iowa 2012), arose out of a unique set of facts, but has led to a decision in which the court has modified its standard of review principles and simultaneously urged the commissioner's office to rethink its manner of deciding cases. The primary issue involved in Burton was a rate question for a claimant who was allegedly supposed to receive a $1,000 per year raise, but was paid (for 15 months) a wage that was $1,000 more on a monthly basis than she had previously been receiving.  The commissioner and court of appeals concluded that the rate should be decided on the basis of the $1,000 additional per month that had been paid, and defendants challenged this conclusion, in addition to challenging a penalty finding and the award of a 30% industrial disability from abdominal injuries sustained by the claimant. In setting forth its standard of review for the case, the court cites the familiar principles of substantial evidence...