Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Bridgestone/Firestone v. Jackman , No. 15-2007 (Iowa App. Nov. 9, 2016), the Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the award of permanent total disability, finding that substantial evidence supported the decision of the commissioner.  On appeal, only the award was contested, the defendants having conceded that claimant's back and neck injuries arose out of and in the course of employment. The court finds that the factors of industrial disability were explicitly considered in the decision of the deputy, which was affirmed by the commissioner.  The court deferred to the commissioner's finding that claimant's vocational expert was more credible than defendants' expert.  The court also noted that claimant's failure to seek other employment was not, in light of all other factors, enough to defeat the finding of permanent total disability. Claimant was represented by Martin Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga.

In Hydecker Wheatland Co. v. Bruce , No. 14-0492 (Iowa App. Jan. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals affirms an award of permanent total disability on substantial evidence grounds.  Claimant had suffered electrical burns to his hands, which precluded his employment in the competitive workforce. The court noted that claimant had come in contact with a live electrical wire, and that the voltage entered his body through his right hand and exited through his left hand. This caused severe burns and nerve damage.  Claimant's fingers were amputated and there was removal of additional areas of burned skin to facilitate skin grafting.  Following the procedures, numerous ratings of impairment were provided, all of which concluded that claimant had substantial impairment. Claimant's vocational expert, Kent Jayne, found that claimant was not able to return to his past work as an electrical lineman and concluded that his low test scores on educational achievement "presented a dire voc...

In JBS Swift and Company v. Hedberg , No. 14-0565 (Iowa App. Jan. 14, 2015), the Court of Appeals reversed a permanent total disability award, finding that the commissioner's designee, who had increased the award from 80% to PTD, failed to consider important evidence in reaching the PTD conclusion.  Thus, what seems to be a substantial evidence question, for which there was record support, is remanded to the commissioner. Claimant suffered a shoulder injury at work.  He also suffered from preexisting problems of hearing loss and speech problems.  He had worked for 20 years despite these problems.  Claimant left his job with the employer, according to the court, because he was unable to care for himself following the unexpected death of his wife.  Claimant testified that if his wife had not died, he would have stayed in Iowa and continued to work at Swift. Two vocational experts offered reports in the case.  Carma Mitchell found that there was a 69% loss...

In Kent v. Diamond Shine Management Services, Inc. , No. 11-1041 (Iowa App. April 25, 2012), the Court of Appeals reiterated the importance of the substantial evidence standard in judicial review actions.  Mr. Kent had suffered injury to his bilateral shoulders, resulting in a 6% BAW rating to one shoulder, and a 4% BAW rating to the other shoulder, according to the IME doctor. Work restrictions were in the 40 pound occasional lifting category.  Claimant presented evidence that his reading and math skills were consistent with students in the upper elementary level.  Claimant also presented evidence from a vocational expert that he was unable to perform any activity in the labor market.  Following the end of the discovery period, claimant moved to add an odd lot claim, which was rejected by the hearing deputy. At the time of hearing, claimant was working, but had suffered a loss of income from $12.00 per hour to $7.50 per hour and was working only part-time.  Def...