Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Des Moines Asphalt & Paving v. Gomez, No. 13-1160 (Iowa App. March 26, 2014), the Court of Appeals summarily affirms an award of permanent total disability for a client who was assaulted by a co-worker at a job site.  Claimant was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder.  On appeal, the court adopts the district court's reasoning and conclusions, pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(b), (d) and (e).  Although it would appear as though the attack on claimant might have been defended on the basis that this was the willful act of a third party directed against the employee for reasons personal to the employee under section 85.16(3), this was not discussed in the decision of the court of appeals, nor was the issue raised before the commissioner. An Application for Further Review was filed with the Supreme Court and denied on July 16, 2014.

In Sullivan v. Cummins Filtration-Lake Mills, No. 13-0658 (Iowa App. March 12, 2004), claimant argued that section 85.34(7) of the Iowa Code, the successive disabilities statute, operated to enhance the degree of disability to her hands.  The Court of Appeals, agreeing with the agency, finds that claimant failed to demonstrate that a second injury to claimant's hand was compensable, and therefore section 85.34(7) was not applicable.  The court also found that the commissioner had explained his reasoning sufficiently in the decision and concluded that no award of alternate medical care was applicable as the claimant had failed to prove that her injury was related to her work. Claimant had an initial injury to her right hand in 1999, was paid benefits for her injury and returned to work symptom free.  She later developed symptoms in both hands in 2011, and settled this case for an additional payment for the injury to the right arm.  The two injuries that were before ...

In Mike Brooks, Inc. v. House , No. 843 NW2d 885 (Iowa 2014), the Supreme Court, which had accepted further review, reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and concluded that the agency decision was supported by substantial evidence, thereby affirming the permanent total disability award of the agency.  The agency had previously found that claimant was permanently and totally disabled, a finding that had been affirmed by the district court. At the Court of Appeals level, a 2-1 majority of the court had concluded that the decision of the agency had not been supported by the evidence.  The court had concluded that the doctors who had found causation did not know of a second injury that claimant had sustained at work after he had been found to have reached maximum medical improvement.  The Court of Appeals found that the treaters had not known of this incident and that the IME doctor's opinion was internally inconsistent because it relied on the opinion of Dr. Hatfie...

In Care Initiatives v. Hoffman , No. 13-0748 (Iowa App. Feb. 19, 2014), the court affirmed the award of permanent total disability, finding that the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.  Claimant suffered a shoulder injury at work, and was terminated by the nursing home because of the restrictions placed on her by her treating physician.  Claimant subsequently had reverse right shoulder replacement surgery. At hearing, claimant offered into evidence a spreadsheet demonstrating that she had applied for work with approximately 150 employers, but had not been able to obtain employment.   She also sought assistance through Iowa Vocational Rehabilitation, where she was placed on a waiting list for services.  Claimant complained of pain.  Kent Jayne issued a vocational report indicating that claimant was precluded from work.  Defendants vocational expert, Shannon Ford, believed that claimant, who was 65 years of age, could perform offic...

In  Weitz Co. v. Selin , No. 13-0939 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2014), the court of appeals affirmed the award of additional medical benefits to claimant.  The employer had argued that the injuries were not causally connected to the workplace injury, and further rejected the argument that certain medical expenses were unauthorized. Claimant suffered an accepted back injury, and had surgery with Dr. Nelson, who ultimately found claimant had reached MMI and suffered a 10% impairment.  Claimant indicated that he was having continuing problems, and filed an application for alternate medical care.  This was dismissed as defendants denied compensability.  Claimant sought care from Drs. Kimelman, McGuire and Igram.  At hearing, claimant was awarded PPD, but the request for additional medical expenses was denied by the deputy.  The commissioner reversed on the medical expenses question. The court of appeals found that the facts concerning the medical expenses wer...

Claimant in Larson Manufacturing Co. v. Wander , No. 13-0567 (Iowa App. January 23, 2014) suffered a back injury while lifting a wood storm door core onto an assembly line.  Claimant was provided several high-dose steroidal regimens.  A MRI showed a disk bulge and possible avascular necrosis in the hips.  Ultimately, claimant had a total hip replacement with Dr. Noiseux.  Dr. Noiseux related this to the work accident.  Claimant also developed necrosis in the shoulder, and this was related to the steroidal treatment by Dr. Emerson.  Dr. Galles agreed with this assessment.  At hearing, the parties stipulated that the shoulder necrosis was work-related, but not the hip necrosis (primarily because the hip necrosis was diagnosed just after the steroidal treatment had begun). The deputy found that the hip condition was related to employment.  On appeal, the commissioner affirmed "noting the deficiencies in the opinions of all the physicians who render...

In Plumrose USA v. Hathaway , No. 13-0495 (Iowa App. Jan. 23, 2014), claimant suffered an injury to his right knee when he fell down a flight of stairs, cause a medial meniscal tear and patella tendon tear.  Claimant had a past history of knee injuries, including three surgeries.  He had been told that he would need knee replacement surgery at some point in the future.  Following the accident, conservative care was initially provided, but ultimately a total knee replacement was recommended. Defendants denied the claim, based on a doctor's report that there was no way of knowing when a TKR would have been needed.  This same doctor later indicated that the TKR was directly related to claimant's acute exacerbation of his chronic knee arthritis, and opined that there was a 50% impairment to the leg.  The arbitration and appeal decisions concluded that the knee injury was compensable, and ordered payment of temporary and permanency benefits. Before the court, the...