Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Havill v. Quaker Oats Company , No. 21-1740 (Iowa App. June 15, 2022) In this tinnitus case, the workers' compensation commissioner dismissed the claim, finding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.  The commissioner concluded that claimant knew or should have known of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable nature of the condition by fall of 2016 and yet did not file a claim until June of 2019.  In reaching this conclusion, the commissioner found that given the incidents and diagnoses made of tinnitus by the fall of 2016 and the fact that claimant sought care at that time, combined with a condition severe enough that claimant had an emotional reaction and needed to lie down, was sufficient to demonstrate claimant knew of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable character of the injury at that time.  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.   The Court of Appeals finds that substantial evidence supp...

The Court of Appeals, in Hecht v. Highline Construction, Inc ., No. 18-2017 (Iowa App. Sept. 11, 2019), affirmed the commissioner's denial of permanency benefits as well as the denial of penalty benefits. The original arbitration decision had awarded claimant a 30% industrial award based on hearing loss and tinnitus.  Claimant testified that when working at a job as a driver after working for Hecht, he had a difficult time driving because of the tinnitus and hearing loss and left that job.  Following the hearing, defendants sought to introduce three additional exhibits, which demonstrated that claimant left Hecht because of unacceptable performance and left his subsequent job because he was asked to conduct illegal DOT inspections.  The deputy granted a motion to admit this evidence.  The commissioner affirmed this finding and based on this evidence, found that claimant was not credible and reversed the 30% award.   On appeal, claimant argues that u...

In McCarthy v. Jeld-Wen, Inc. , No. 13-0636 (Iowa App. Dec. 18, 2013), the Court of Appeals affirmed the commissioner's findings that claimant was not permanently and totally disabled due to a respiratory injury and also affirmed the decision that claimant's tinnitus did not arise out of his employment.  Claimant was awarded an 80% industrial disability by the commissioner and was also awarded healing period benefits. The court affirmed in the face of claimant's appeal and defendants' cross-appeal. Claimant was exposed to isocyanates at work, and although defendants admitted this fact, they claimed he was not entitled to healing period or permanency benefits.  Defendants denied claimant's tinnitus.   On the tinnitus question, the court concludes that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's finding without discussion, citing Rule of Court 21.26(1)(a), (b), (d) and (e). On the question of healing period, defendants question whether claimant was ...

In PMX Industries v. Reich , No. 12-1824 (Iowa App. May 30, 2013), the court addressed issues of tinnitus and hearing loss in a workers' compensation setting, and addressed the issue of when notice had to be provided for a tinnitus claim.  Claimant was a long time worker for PMX, which was an admittedly noisy facility.  Claimant testified that although he wore hearing protection, he would often have to remove the hearing protection in order to hear people talking within the plant. In 2008 he was diagnosed with a hearing loss and resigned from his employment. The doctor who addressed the hearing loss issues for the employer, Dr. Taylor, found that claimant had a 2.2% bilateral hearing loss.  Claimant was referred to Dr. Marlan Hansen at the University of Iowa, who agreed that claimant had noise-induced hearing loss.  Claimant was then referred to Dr. Plakke, who noted hearing loss, but indicated that because of the continued loss of hearing after he left PMX, this w...

The case of Square D Company v. Plagmann ,No. 1-869 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2011) addressed an issue that does not appear frequently before the appellate courts - the question of tinnitus.  In Plagmann , the court concluded that the decision of the deputy commissioner who found that claimant's tinnitus was related to work was supported by substantial evidence. Dr. Tyler concluded that claimant's work with Square D had resulted in hearing loss and tinnitus, and provided a 4.5% impairment rating.  Dr. Tyler also found, incorrectly, that claimant had not worn hearing protection until he had worked with the employer for fourteen years (claimant had testified that even though there was no hearing protection program, he had worn hearing protection).  Dr. Hoisington concluded that claimant's hearing loss and tinnitus were not related to his work, in part because his hearing loss continued to worsen after he left work.  The deputy who heard the case sided with Dr. Hoisington, ...