Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Moad v. Libby and Dakota Truck Underwriters , No, 14-0290 (Iowa App. March 11, 2015), a case decided on the same day as the decision in Moad v. Gary Jensen Trucking , the Court of Appeals concludes that a subrogation lien filed by the workers' compensation insurer was effective under South Dakota law. Claimant was a resident of South Dakota, employed by a South Dakota trucking company. He was paid workers' compensation benefits voluntarily under South Dakota law for an injury that occurred in Iowa.  Following claimant's death, his wife sought benefits under Iowa's workers' compensation laws.  Claimant's wife settled the personal injury claim and the parties agreed that there was a right to subrogation if South Dakota law controlled, and no right to subrogation if Iowa law controlled.  The district court found that Iowa law governed and extinguished the lien. The case came to the Iowa Supreme Court in Moad v. Dakota Truck Underwriters , 831 N.W.2d 111 (Iow...

Moad v. Dakota Truck Underwriters , 831 NW2d 111 (Iowa 2013), involved the question of what law to apply (the law of Iowa or South Dakota) to determine whether a South Dakota WC carrier was entitled to subrogation for payments made to its insured by underinsured and uninsured carriers arising out of a settlement from third-party litigation. Claimant died when the truck he was driving for his employer was struck by another vehicle near Iowa City.   WC benefits were paid under South Dakota law.  Claimant's wife filed a third party action in Iowa District Court.  Claimant's wife and children were South Dakota residents.  The WC carrier notified the parties that it was entitled to subrogation of any proceeds received by plaintiff as a result of the third party action. A settlement agreement was reached with Northland agreeing to pay $300,000, plus $100,000 to cover the workers' compensation carrier's subrogation lien.  Plaintiff agreed to file a motion to strike...

In Sanchez v. Celadon Trucking Services , No. 12-0895 (Iowa App. Feb. 13, 2013), the Court of Appeals addressed a review-reopening question which was combined with questions concerning the proceeds of a third party action, and the employer's subrogation rights from that proceeding.  Claimant had originally been awarded a 25% industrial disability, and later filed for review reopening, and also sought an adjudication of the extent of the employer's remaining lien from the third-party settlement. The deputy found that claimant was not entitled to additional benefits, finding that claimant lacked credibility. The deputy also found that the employer's calculation of the lien was correct and ordered that the lien be honored by claimant.  The commissioner summarily affirmed the decision on both points.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision. The court notes that on the review-reopening questions, its task was limited to determining whether substantial ev...