Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Waterloo Community School District v. DeMaldonado No. 22-0845 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) Claimant had years of treatment, primarily physical therapy, for numerous injuries sustained while working.  After several years of treatment, she sought alternate medical care in the form of pain management recommended by her treating physician, which was denied by the employer.  In the application for alternate medical care, the deputy concluded that claimant had proved that the care provided was unreasonable but denied that the employer had abandoned care.  The school district appealed to the district court, which affirmed the decision of the commissioner. As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals addressed an argument made by claimant that the employer's judicial review petition had not been timely filed.  The claimant had initially filed for alternate medical care, but had dismissed the petition and then refiled.  In the judicial review action, the employer had a...

  Waterloo Community School District v. DeMaldonado , No. 22-0845 (Iowa App. Feb. 8, 2023) Claimant was injured at work and received treatment for several years.  After a time, she became dissatisfied with care, as the employer refused to authorize pain management, referred her to providers unsuited to treating her condition, lied about the authorization for care and interfered with care she sought from her own selected providers.  After filing an application for alternate medical care, the deputy ordered defendants to provide pain management with Dr. Mathew.  There was found to be insufficient proof that the employer had abandoned DeMaldonado's care.  Defendants were cautioned, however, not to interfere with the medical judgment of its own treating physician.  The district court affirmed the decision of the agency. On appeal, claimant first raised an issue of the timeliness of of the judicial review petition.  Claimant had filed an alternate care peti...

In Evenson v. Winnebago Industries , No. 17-1419 (Iowa Jan. 18, 2019), the court held that the failure to file a notice of appeal with the district court in a timely manner meant that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to consider the appeal.  Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed Two appeals were filed in this workers' compensation action, one originating in Winnebago County and the other in Polk County. Although the appeals were timely filed with the Supreme Court and copies were sent to opposing counsel, there was no filing of the appeal with the clerks of the respective counties until a corrected notice was filed with the Polk County Clerk 144 days after service.  Appellate Rule 6.101(1)(b) holds that time for filing a notice of appeal is tolled when the notice is served, "provided the notice is filed with the district court clerk within a reasonable time." Thus, the question before the court was whether filing 144 days after service was a reasonable time. ...

Stark Construction v. Lauterwasser , No. 15-1786 (Iowa App. 2016) is a claim that had earlier been decided by the Court of Appeals.  In the earlier decision, the appellate court reversed the district court's opinion that claimant was not an employee and remanded the case to the district court for further proceedings.  On remand, the district court remanded the claim to the commissioner for issuance of a decision on a timely notice issue.  Claimant appealed the remand order, arguing that the employer failed to preserve error at the agency level for judicial review.  The employer argued that claimant's appeal was untimely because claimant filed an improper 1.904(2) order to toll the time for filing notice of appeal. The court first addressed the issue of the timeliness of claimant's appeal.  In this case, the appeal was filed beyond 30 days, but it was filed within 30 days of the district court's ruling on the 1.904(2) motion.  The court finds that a proper...