Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Saltern v. HNI Corporation and Gallagher Bassett Services , No. 18-1748 (Iowa App. Oct. 9, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed a district court ruling dismissing a bad faith claim brought by plaintiff Saltern.  The ruling was premised on the court's conclusion that the employer did not lack a reasonable basis for denying benefits and thus the first prong of the bad faith test was not met. Claimant had prevailed in her workers' compensation claim on her claim for injury due to carpal tunnel syndrome.  Penalty was awarded based on the fact that HNI had not communicated its basis for rejecting the claim under section 86.13 of the Code.  Following the resolution of the workers' compensation claim, Saltern brought a bad faith action.  The district court concluded on summary judgment that at the time that HNI first denied the claim, there was no information to indicate that her carpal tunnel was related to employment. Specifically, no doctor had concluded that the ...

In Ostwinkle v. Mathay Construction Co. , No. 19-0341 (Iowa App. Sept. 25, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed the award of a second IME in a review reopening case under section 85.39 of the Code.  After filing his review reopening case, claimant sought and was granted an IME by the commissioner, which was duly paid by defendants.  Claimant subsequently dismissed the review reopening petition, and later refiled following the issuance of a second impairment rating by defendants' physician.  Claimant sought another IME, which was granted by the deputy.  Defendants appealed and  the commissioner and district court affirmed. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the agency was affirmed. Defendants argued that 85.39 permits payment for only a single IME.  Claimant argued that the statute allows a second IME if there is a second impairment rating by defendants' physician, which had occurred in this case.  The court concluded that Kohlha...

The court in A-Tec Recycling v. Wood , No. 18-2182 (Iowa App. Sept. 11, 2019) found that the commissioner's decision concluding that claimant's heart condition was attributable to his employment, was supported by substantial evidence.  A 10% industrial award was affirmed. Claimant had fallen from the back of a truck and experienced significant bruising on his right side.  Following the fall, the condition worsened and when he sought medical treatment, he was diagnosed with atrial fibrillation, pneumonia and pleural effusion.  The Court of Appeals concludes that because claimant's treating physician found that the work injury was a substantial contributing factor to the heart problem, the decision of the agency was supported by substantial evidence.  The doctor's finding that claimant would be required to use medications for the rest of his life as a result of the heart condition was also found to be substantial evidence supporting a finding of permanency. ...

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 Bell v. 3E , No. 19-0310 (Iowa App. Sept. 11, 2019), the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and concluded that a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation case was not served in a timely manner.  The petition was therefore reversed. Petitioner filed a timely petition for judicial review but did not immediately serve the petition as required by IRCP 1.302(5) .  Although the petition was served by EDMS after being filed on May 22, 2018, the petition was not served by petitioner until August 24, two days after the district court noted that no service had occurred.  The district court concluded that the late service did not prejudice 3E. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court, and noted that section 17A.19(2) of the Code required service within ten days, by personal service or mail. The court noted that the EDMS rules do not equate to service of process when a petition is automatically serv...

In Sullivan v. West Central Cooperative,  No. 18-1811 (Iowa App. Aug. 21, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner which concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate a physical mental claim. Claimant had a stipulated physical injury at work, which was not before the court on appeal.  The sole issue presented to the court was whether claimant had established a physical mental injury.  At hearing, two reports were presented by claimant in favor of a permanent mental health problem caused by the accident.  Claimant relied on the reports of Dr. Mills and Dr. Gallagher.  Defendants argued, based on the reports of Dr. Chesen and Dr. Andrikopoulos, that claimant had not established a physical mental injury.  They found that claimant was malingering and had no ongoing mental health problems as a result of the accident.  The deputy found and the commissioner affirmed, that claimant had not reported any depression, PTSD or oth...

In Saghir v. Menards, No. 18-1712 (App. August 7, 2019), the court of appeals affirmed the decision of the commissioner, which had concluded claimant had not established a permanent impairment or industrial disability.  While working for Menards, claimant had a piece of lumber fall on his head.  Testing showed normal head, neck and back results and the treating neurologist indicated that most of the symptoms were related to depression. A neuropsychological evaluation found no permanent neurological impairment.  No work restrictions were imposed. At hearing, claimant indicated that he suffered from memory problems, balance issues and headaches.  An eye physician found significant loss of function in the eyes and the IME doctor assigned ratings for the head injury and vision, gait and neck problems, as well as limiting claimant to sedentary work. The deputy concluded claimant was not a credible witness and stated that he exhibited a "deliberate effort to exagg...