Iowa Workers' Compensation

The Court of Appeals addressed the issue of injuries at a company sponsored event in Gazette Communications v. Powell , No. 0-633 (Oct. 6, 2010).  http://www.iowacourts.gov/court_of_appeals/Recent_Opinions/20101006/0-633.pdf.  Claimant injured himself while at a bowling event organized by an employee activity committee.  This injury occurred on June 11, 2005.  Claimant also alleged an injury on June 20, 2005.  The commissioner concluded that the employer derived a substantial direct benefit from the participation of the claimant and thus the injury arose out of and in the course of employment.  A 50% industrial disability award was made. The district court reversed, citing Briar Cliff College v. Campolo , 360 N.W.2d 91, 94 (Iowa 1984).  The case was remanded to determine the effect of the June 20 injury.  The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the district court, and focused on the issue of participation in the company event, and the so-c...

In Andover Volunteer Fire Department & Travelers Ins. Co. v. Grinnell Mutual Reinsurance Co. , 2010 WL 3186153 (Iowa, No. 08-1628 Aug. 13, 2010), the Supreme Court allocated risk between two insurance companies.  The claimant in the underlying case, Justin Faur, was an employee of Johnson Valley Beef as well as a volunteer firefighter for the Andover VFD.  On the date of the injury, Justin was attempting to rescue a co-employee who had been overcome by methane fumes at Johnson Valley Beef.  At about the same time as Justin was attempting to rescue the co-worker, he was paged by the VFD to the scene of the accident.  Both the co-worker and Justin died as a result of the accident. Grinnell Mutual, which was the insurance carrier for Johnson Valley Beef, paid the claim and sought contribution or indemnity from Travelers, the carrier for the Andover VFD.  Grinnell claimed that Justin had been "summoned to duty as a volunteer firefighter" under 85.61(7)(a) of t...

The appellate courts have had a surfeit of rate cases before them recently, and in Hilltop Care Center v. Burton, 2010 WL 2598373 (No. 0-323 June 30, 2010), the court decided another such case.  The rate dispute was premised on a unique factual situation.  Ms. Burton was supposed to receive a raise, which amounted to $1,000 per year, but was instead paid an additional $1,000 per month, thus raising her income by $12,000 on a yearly basis.  She was allegedly overpaid for the last 15 months she worked for the employer.  Apparently, the error was not discovered until Ms. Burton filed unemployment papers following her discharge by the employer. The deputy concluded that claimant should have been paid on the basis of her actual earnings, not on the basis of what her wages should have been.  The commissioner affirmed.  On judicial review, the district court reversed, finding that "an accounting error is not tantamount to an entitlement to an elevated wage." ...

In Swiss Colony v. Deutmeyer , 789 NW2d 129 (Iowa 2010), Kent Deutmeyer worked 30 hours a week at Swiss Colony at the time of his workers' compensation injury.  That injury ultimately required an amputation to the knee, and complaints of phantom pain after the amputation.  During the time he worked at Swiss Colony, claimant also worked 40-45 hours per week at Webber Metals.  The questions presented to the court involved the correct rate for claimant, as well as the extent of industrial disability (claimant left work following his injury, again working in two jobs, but for considerably less money). Also involved was the question of whether the employer could obtain credit for alleged overpayments, which involved section 85.34(5) of the statute. In determining the standard of review, the court noted that it had previously found that interpretation of Chapter 85 had not been delegated to the Commissioner.   Mycogen Seeds v. Sands , 686 N.W.2d 457, 464 (Iowa 2004)...

Solland v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , 786 NW2d 248 (Iowa 2010) provided the court with an opportunity to decide an issue of costs.  The court of appeals had assessed costs equally to the claimant and the Fund, despite the fact that claimant had prevailed in all respects before the court of appeals.   Solland  began as a case in which claimant pursued his case against the Fund for two bilateral injuries. At the court of appeals level, the court found in favor of claimant, citing Gregory v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa , 777 N.W.2d 395 (Iowa 2010) and Second Injury Fund of Iowa v. Kratzer , 778 N.W.2d 42 (Iowa 2010).  On the costs  issue, the court of appeals reversed the decision of the district court approving the assessment of costs by the commissioner and taxed costs of appeals to both parties equally. The Supreme Court found that Solland was the successful party on appeal, "prevailing on all substantive issues." The court found it clearly erroneous, given t...

Horseplay is not an area that is addressed frequently by the Supreme Court, so the decision in Xenia Rural Water District v. Vegors ,  786 NW2d 250  (July 2010) was an interesting departure from most workers' compensation cases before the court.    The facts of the case are somewhat unusual.  Claimant and a co-worker were in the habit of acknowledging each other by activities such as waving the boom of a back hoe at the other.  On the date of injury, claimant had his hands full and acknowledged the other employee by "wiggling his butt" at him.  The co-employee the attempted to bump claimant with the mirror of his truck, but ended up hitting him with the truck bed. The commissioner found claimant entitled to benefits, holding that the burden of proving horseplay was on the employer.  The commissioner also rejected a defense that the injury was caused by a willful act of a third party.  The district court reversed and denied benefits to...

In February of 2009, Snap-On Tools filed a petition for declaratory order with the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner.  Initially, the commissioner did not answer the petition, and a petition for judicial review was filed in district court.  The parties agreed that the commissioner would issue a ruling, and on June 14, 2010, the commissioner did so. All of the questions posed in the declaratory ruling related to section 85.39 of the Code.  Those questions were as follows: Must the employer use specific language in an 85.39 request? Can the employee veto or control the identity of the 85.39 physician? What amount of time before the examination is fair notice? Must mileage and meal expenses be paid in advance? What is a reasonable expense for meals? Under what circumstances must lodging be paid for in association with an 85.39 exam? Must the employee actually incur a lodging expense to be entitled to payment? Does 85.39 authorize an employer to request a me...