Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Chavez v. MS Technology, LLC, No. 21-0777 (Iowa April 1, 2022) Deng v. Farmland Foods, Inc. , No. 21-0760 (Iowa April 1, 2022) In these two cases, the Supreme Court addressed, for the first time, whether the 2017 changes made by the Iowa Legislature creating a a new 85.34(2)(n) and a new scheduled member injury for injuries to the "shoulder" was limited to the glenohumeral joint or extended beyond that joint to other structures affecting the shoulder.  The question raised was whether injuries outside of the glenohumeral joint should be considered to be industrial disabilities or limited to the 400 weeks of benefits under 85.34(2)(n).  The Court, in an opinion announced in the Chavez  case, held that shoulder injuries were not limited to those affecting the glenohumeral joint and further found that shoulder cases are to be determined according to the 400 week schedule in 85.34(2)(n). Claimant Chavez was found to have a full thickness rotator cuff tear and underwent ...

  Earling Grain and Fee v. Martin , No. 21-1446 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022) Claimant was found to be permanently and totally disabled by the commissioner, contrary to the employer's position that claimant had not reached MMI.  On appeal, the Court notes that its review was severely circumscribed and that the job of weighing the evidence was one for the commissioner. The Court finds that defendants raised the same arguments that had been raised before and rejected by the commissioner.  Because the findings of the agency with respect to claimant's reaching MMI were supported by substantial evidence, the decision of the agency was affirmed.

  City of Harlan v. Thygesen , No. 21-0265 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022) In this hearing loss case, claimant suffered a hearing loss some ten years prior to the time claimant filed his claim and knew that his injury was work-related.  Claimant alleged that despite these facts, the statute did not begin to run on his claim until either 2014 (when he was provided with audiogram results) or 2015 (the date assigned by the employer because he did not appreciate the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury until those dates.  Defendants alleged that claimant failed to timely notify them of the claim and failed to timely file the claim. The commissioner found that claimant, despite being aware of hearing loss and the fact that the hearing loss was caused by employment, did not appreciate the severity of the claim, crediting the testimony of claimant.  The district court reversed and found that claimant knew the nature, seriousness and probable compe...

  Green v. North Central Iowa Regional Solid Waste Authority , No. 21-0490 (Iowa App. March 2, 2022) Claimant's initial claim resulted in a decision in which the commissioner concluded that claimant had failed to demonstrate a permanent brain injury arising out of employment.  The district court affirmed, but remanded for findings concerning past medical expenses.  Claimant subsequently filed a petition for review-reopening, asserting permanent and total disability.  The employer filed a motion for summary judgment, alleging that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because claimant could not relitigate her claim for permanency.  The deputy granted the motion, finding that the issues had been ripe for determination earlier and had been decided against her.  The commissioner affirmed. On judicial review, the district court reversed the commissioner, finding that the "the commissioner's conclusion that Green's lack of award renders it incapable of b...

  ABF Freight System Inc. v. Hilliard , No. 21-0855 (Iowa App. Jan. 27, 2022) Claimant suffered a neck injury in 2016 and was awarded a 30% industrial disability.  He later filed a request for review-reopening and was awarded an additional 20% by the deputy and commissioner.  This finding was affirmed by the district court. On appeal, the employer argued that there had been no changes in claimant’s physical condition and posited that claimant’s physician had not placed him on restrictions.  The court finds that the decision of the agency finding that there had been a change in physical condition was supported by substantial evidence. Specifically, claimant’s physician opined that claimant’s condition had declined since his surgery and that he had developed chronic, debilitating pain.  The doctor also explained that he did not impose restrictions because they “don’t work . . . In general, I don’t impose them if - unless absolutely necessary.”  The court find...

Mercy Medical Center v. Lund , No. 21-0523 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant worked at a job at Mercy Medical Center that required assembling materials for surgery, which required heavy work exerting up to 65 pounds of push/pull force and the lifting of up to 50 pounds sometimes and 40 pounds frequently.  While lifting trays over her head, she felt pain in the right side of her neck and both shoulders felt tight and sore.  She was diagnosed with bilateral shoulder impingement by Dr. Harbach.  His notes indicated that claimant hurt after performing all of her work duties.  Claimant was also seen by an ARNP who noted that claimant was injured lifting surgical pans.  Dr. Aviles diagnosed a full thickness rotator cuff tear and recommended surgery.  He later indicated that he did not believe the rotator cuff tear resulted from work.  Further medical care from the employer was denied. Dr. Davick saw claimant and provided treatment.  Claimant's counsel ...

  Cochran v. Quest Liner, Inc. , No. 21-0288 (Iowa App. Jan. 12, 2022) Claimant suffered an injury at work and was paid healing period benefits for a time.  Defendants sent claimant a notice that healing period benefits would be ended as required by section 86.13.  Claimant alleged that he was entitled to additional healing period benefits and the arbitration decision found that claimant was entitled to continuing healing period benefits.  Penalty benefits were denied as the commissioner indicated it was reasonably debatable whether claimant was entitled to continuing benefits. Claimant appealed, arguing that defendants failed to obtain an impairment rating or do any further investigation to determine if he was entitled to further benefits after their authorized treating physician placed him at MMI.  On appeal, the court finds that the issue raised implicates the application of law to fact standard of review and that the decision will only be overturned if the a...