Iowa Workers' Compensation

In  Leeper v. Pioneer Hi-Bred International, No. 18-1637 (Iowa App. Nov. 27, 2018), the court of appeals affirmed the decisions of the agency and district court finding that claimant had not demonstrated a permanent impairment.  No physician had concluded claimant had a permanent ratable impairment for loss of function under the Guides, although Dr. Kuhnlein provided a 1% impairment for pain.  Despite this, the agency found that claimant had not demonstrated a permanent impairment.   The Court of Appeals concludes that despite claimant's assertions of numerous errors under the IAPA, the case boiled down to a question of whether the decision was supported by substantial evidence.  The Court of Appeals concluded that the agency had considered the medical evidence in addition to the testimony of claimant and found that no permanent impairment had been established.  This finding, according to the court, was supported by substantial evidence and the de...

The following are brief synopses of some of the cases that have been decided in cases involving post 7-1-17 dates of injury and the applicability date of the 2017 law. Rubalcava v. Siouxpreme Egg Products , No. 5066865 (Arb. June 23, 2020) - In this action, Deputy Grell concludes, based on the opinions of Dr. Archer, concludes that claimant’s injury, which was characterized as a shoulder injury, extended into the body.  Claimant had rotator cuff tears which were found to be proximal to the shoulder joint, as well as a distal clavicle excision.  The decision indicates that the analysis was similar to that of finding a wrist injury to be an injury to the arm rather than the hand.  The decision also analyzes earlier decisions concerning “shoulder” injuries.  Ultimately, because claimant returned to work, the claim was limited to the rating of impairment (9%) to the body as a whole under 85.34(2)(x). Alm v. Archer Daniels Midland , No. 5067128 (Arb. June 10, 2020) -...

In Romero v. Curly's Foods , No. 18-2066 (Iowa App. Nov. 6, 2019), the Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of a claim on notice grounds.  Claimant had alleged a cumulative injury and urged that she did not appreciate the permanent impact on employment until just before she notified defendants of the injury.  The commissioner concluded that claimant realized that the injury was work related and serious in May of 2013 because she argued she reported the injury to defendants at that time.  Defendants argued that notification had not occurred until 2014.  On the facts of the case, the commissioner concluded that claimant had not notified defendants in a timely manner.  The commissioner also noted that this was a fact specific finding, applicable only to this case.   Rather than delve into the question of when claimant appreciated that the injury would have a permanent impact on employment, the court finds that the commissioner's findings were supp...

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...