Iowa Workers' Compensation

In a case litigated by Jamie Byrne of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga, the Court in JBS Swift and Co. v. Ochoa , No. 15-0840 (Iowa Dec. 30, 2016) affirmed that under the 2004 amendments to the workers' compensation statute, a claimant could receive a first award of permanent partial disability benefits and then, based on a new injury, receive a permanent total disability award and that these awards can run concurrently.  The Court affirmed the action of the Iowa Court of Appeals, which had held that the general assembly removed the barriers to collecting two streams of benefits at the same time, so long as there were two separate injuries and the second injury resulted in permanent total disability benefits. Claimant suffered an initial hernia, which was found to be the cause of  70% industrial disability. She returned to work following this injury and subsequently developed neck and shoulder difficulties.  As a result of these problems, she left work and was subsequently ter...

In Delire v. Key City Transport , No. 16-0720 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2016), the court addressed for the second time a rate issue presented by the parties.  Claimant was a trucker, who was only three weeks into his employment at the time of his injury.  He believed that his yearly earnings were to be $75,000 and his original rate was based on an annual salary of $70,000.  This rate was reversed in the original Court of Appeals decision and the case was remanded for further consideration. In the second appeal, the question was whether claimant's rate should be determined based on his salary in two of the three weeks he worked (the third week was significantly less than the other two weeks) or whether all three weeks should be taken into account.  The commissioner considered all three weeks.  The court indicated that section 85.36(7) addressed the situation more precisely because it applied "in the case of an employee who has been in the employ of the employer less ...

This case began when the Core Group of the Iowa Association for Justice requested the commissioner to enter a declaratory order holding that employers must, under section 85.27(2) of the Iowa Code, provide surveillance materials as a part of normal discovery, and must provide these materials prior to claimant's deposition.  The commissioner found in favor of the Core Group and the Iowa Insurance Institute and others appealed to the district court.  The district court and Court of Appeals affirmed.  In Iowa Insurance Institute et al. v. Core Group etc. and Godfrey , No. 13-1627 (Iowa June 12, 2015), the Supreme Court, in a 5-1 decision , reversed the decision of the commissioner.  The court concludes that the disclosure provisions of section 85.27(2) are "limited to health-care related privileges such as the physician-patient privilege." The court first addressed the procedural mechanism for the grant of a declaratory order under section 17A.9 of the Iowa Code and 8...

Hoyt v. Wendling Quarries , No. 14-0800 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015), presented the interesting question of whether section 85.27 of the Code required or allowed for payment for counseling for the spouse of the injured worker, when that counseling was recommended by an authorized treater for the claimant.  Ultimately, the Court of Appeals concluded, as had the agency, that section 85.27, did not require payment for such treatment by the employer. Claimant suffered severe physical injuries while working, and subsequently developed depressive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder and dementia.  He was ultimately found permanently and totally disabled, and that decision was not a part of the case before the Court of Appeals.  During claimant's treatment for his injury, Dr. Michael March, the authorized mental health provider, recommended that claimant and his wife engage in individualized counseling. Claimant's wife was his primary caretaker and Dr. March stated that she w...

The court in Ramirez-Trujillo v. Quality Egg , No. 14-0640 (Iowa App. Feb. 11, 2015) addressed issues of causation and medical expenses, and affirmed the decision of the commissioner on both grounds.  At the appeal level before the agency, the commissioner held that claimant's condition subsequent to September 30, 2009 was not the result of her work injury on August 1, 2009, and that the employer was responsible for reimbursing claimant for out of pocket medical expenses incurred after September 30, 2009, "because the employer failed to notify Ramirez-Trujillo that the care was no longer authorized as required by Iowa Code section 85.27(4)." The district court reversed the commissioner's order with respect to medical expenses and affirmed the decision of the district court on the medical causation question.  The court found that it was reasonable for the employer to deny payment for the medical costs as claimant told the employer that the treatment was for a separat...