Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Authority , No. 21-0490 (Iowa April 14, 2023) Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim against his employer for an injury that occurred at work.  As a part of the case, the employer agreed that claimant's work had caused her cerebral hemorrhage.  The employer paid temporary benefits for the injury for three months, but the employer argued that the injury had not resulted in a permanent injury.  The agency agreed that no permanent injury had occurred and an appeal to the district court affirmed this result.  Claimant subsequently filed a review-reopening claim (in a timely manner based on the earlier payment of temporary benefits), arguing that her injury had become permanent over time.  The agency, on summary judgment, concluded that claimant had previously litigated the issue of permanency and found that the claim was barred under res judicata principles. On judicial review, the district court conclude...

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises v. Badia , No. 21-1871 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2022) This action involved a settlement agreement in which the claimant, following the agreement to settle her case, attempted to propose alternative terms in the settlement agreement.  Defendants sought to enforce the settlement agreement it claimed to have with claimant.  During the course of these proceedings, claimant's counsel was deposed, with counsel not delving into matters that were the subject of attorney-client privilege.  Defendants moved for summary judgment, based on emails exchanged between counsel confirming the terms of the settlement.  Claimant resisted the motion for summary judgment, citing communication problems with counsel and an allegation to she did not authorize counsel to settle the matter on her behalf.  The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court noted that generally counsel has the power to bind a client to any agreement...

  Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Authority , No. 21-0490 (Iowa App. March 2, 2022) Claimant's initial claim resulted in a decision in which the commissioner concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate a permanent brain injury arising out of employment.  The district court affirmed, but remanded for findings concerning past medical expenses.  Claimant subsequently filed a petition for review-reopening, asserting permanent and total disability.  The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because claimant could not relitigate her claim for permanency.  The deputy granted the motion, finding that the issues had been ripe for determination earlier and had been decided against her.  The commissioner affirmed. On judicial review, the district court reversed the commissioner, finding that the "the commissioner's conclusion that Green's lack of award renders it incapable of b...

Claimant's estate in this matter argued that settlement of claimant's partial commutation case had been reached before claimant died.  The agency granted summary judgment to the employer and in Estate of Ed Albaugh v. UPS Freight , No. 20-0070 (Iowa App. April 14, 2021), the court of appeals affirmed the grant of summary judgment to defendant.  Claimant had been injured at work and was found to be permanently and totally disabled by the agency in 2014.  Claimant petitioned for partial commutation of benefits in March 2017. In June, defendant's attorney indicated that his client would agree to partial commutation if claimant agreed to an MSA, with a reversionary interest to Gallagher Bassett/UPS.  Plaintiff's attorney responded he was willing to consider the idea. By November, no further progress had been reached, but shortly before the May 1, 2018 hearing, defendant's attorney indicated that UPS would agree to commutation and run a new MSA.  She indicated that i...

In Dunlap v. AIG, Inc., Commerce and Industry Insurance Company , No. 17-1503 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2019), the Court of Appeals reverses a district court order granting summary judgment in favor of defendants in a workers' compensation claim. The case was brought following a workers' compensation action in which claimant was found entitled to benefits but penalty benefits were denied because the issue of liability was fairly debatable because defendants had one doctor opining that the injury was not work-related.   In the underlying workers' compensation claim, Dr. Wolfe had opined that it is possible that Dunlap's arm injuries, while not directly caused by the initial work injury, were a result of the natural consequences of claimant's back injury requiring him to ambulate with the use of a cane. Despite this, defendants continued to deny liability. Claimant was ultimately found to be permanently and totally disabled and awarded medical care.   Plaintiff subs...

Stowe v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , No. 16-0599 (Iowa App. Jan. 25, 2107) presented the somewhat unusual situation where the commissioner had disposed of a case on summary judgment grounds.  Claimant had settled her case against the employer on an agreement for settlement and in the settlement documents had indicated that the injury was an injury to the left thumb.  When claimant brought an action against the Fund, the Fund filed for summary judgment, claiming that an injury to the thumb was not a qualifying injury for SIF purposes.  The deputy and commissioner agreed and the case was dismissed. Claimant filed a petition for judicial review and the district court reversed the decision of the agency, finding that the commissioner erred in ruling as a matter of law the settlement agreement precluded claimant from seeking Fund benefits on the basis of a hand injury.  The court noted that the Fund was not a party to the settlement agreement and also found there was n...

In Sager v. Innovative Lighting, dba Hawkeye Molding, Inc.,  No. 15-0783 (Iowa App. May 25, 2016), plaintiff had filed a common law negligence action against Innovative Lighting.  Plaintiff had been hired for work at Hawkeye by Jacobson Staffing, which was apparently how all parties work for Hawkeye.  Jacobson provides workers' compensation coverage for its employees.  Plaintiff was injured at Hawkeye and filed a workers' compensation claim against Jacobson, for which he received a settlement. Plaintiff's attorneys had communications with Hawkeye concerning the filing of a third party action, and filed suit claiming negligence against Hawkeye for an injury to his hand from a burn resulting from hot liquid.  Hawkeye filed a motion for summary judgment claimant that it was immune from liability under the exclusivity provisions of the Iowa Code, section 85.20.  The district court concluded, in ruling in favor of Hawkeye, that the only reasonable inference to...

Plaintiff in Wusk v Evangelical Retirement Homes , No. 15-0166 (Iowa App. Dec. 23, 2015) asserted that she was wrongfully terminated from employment as a result of pursuing a workers' compensation claim.  The district court ruled in the employer's favor on summary judgment and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Plaintiff suffered a work related injury to her arm and pursued a workers' compensation claim.  On November 5, 2012, claimant was released from all restrictions and was cleared for regular duty work. Claimant called and left a message for her supervisor about this, and her supervisor called back within a day and left a message for claimant.  After this, claimant did not speak to anyone with the employer.  Her workers' compensation claim was settled on July 9, 2013.  Claimant was terminated in August of 2013, because she had not scheduled any hours and had not followed the terms of the pool agreement.  Claimant indicated she contacted the nursing home...

Thompson v. ATI Products, Inc., No. 14-1765 (Iowa App. Aug. 19, 2015), involved a situation where plaintiff was hired by an employment broker, Aventure Staffing and Professional Services, who placed him at ATI, where he was seriously injured on the first day of work.  Plaintiff filed a workers' compensation claim against Aventure and was provided with benefits.  He also filed suit against ATI for negligence.  ATI moved for summary judgment, claiming it was a "special employer" as a matter of law and arguing that the exclusive remedy provisions of the Iowa Code, section 85.20, barred the negligence action.  The district court found that no issue of material fact existed and granted summary judgment, finding that an implied contract of employment had been created that that Thompson's action was barred. Plaintiff appealed, arguing that in a "borrowed servant" situation such as this, the primary focus was whether the parties intended that an employment situati...

In Saltern v. HNI Corp. , No. 13-1193 (Iowa App. Aug. 13, 2014), the parties agreed to settle the case on an agreement for settlement basis, with defendants agreeing to pay penalty benefits for the delay in paying benefits.  After the AGFS was filed, claimant filed a bad faith claim and filed a motion for partial summary judgment urging the court to find that there was no reasonable basis to deny and delay benefits.  Defendants filed a cross motion for summary judgment, urging dismissal.  The district court denied claimant's motion and granted defendants' motion. Defendants argued that the facts in the workers' compensation case were such that there was a question of whether claimant slipped on ice in the parking lot, or whether the fall was idiopathic in nature.  Claimant argued that defendants' action of agreeing to payment of penalty demonstrated that there was no reasonable basis for its action in denying and delaying payment of benefits.  Claimant argued ...

In another example of how difficult it is to successfully pursue a gross negligence claim, the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of such a claim in Whitacre v. Brown , No. 1-509 (Iowa App. Oct. 19, 2011).  Plaintiff had been taught to clean the rollers on a machine in a certain manner, and this same technique for cleaning the machine had been used in the past without incident.  A Manual that was in proximity to the machine advised workers not to put their hands by the revolving rolls and not to wipe the rollers while they were turning.  The Manual's instructions were contrary to the method in which plaintiff was instructed, in which the rollers were cleaned while they were turning.  Mr. Whitacre was injured using the cleaning procedures he had been taught. Whitacre filed against defendants based on gross negligence, and his claim was dismissed on summary judgment by the district court because he had not demonstrated any of the elements of gross negligence....