Iowa Workers' Compensation

  2023 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions December 2023 LaGuerre v. JBS USA Holdings, Inc. , No. 21012994.01 (App. Dec. 29. 2023) - The deputy concluded claimant had suffered an injury to his right arm with a sequella injury to the right leg. The injuries were skin injuries. The deputy found that defendants were responsible for the injury under 85.34(2)(t) as a functional injury, not as industrial disability. and awarded 35 weeks of benefits (Lunn). On appeal, claimant argues that the injury should have been considered industrially under 85.34(2)(v) and should be awarded a 65% industrial disability.  The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy without providing additional analysis. 5 months from arbitration to appeal decision. Antunez-Erazo v. Brand FX Body Co. , Nos. 21012704.01, 21008748.01 (App. Dec. 28, 2023) - In these two actions, the deputy concluded that claimant had suffered a low back injury, but did not find permanency in the first action and also concl...

O'Reilly Auto Enterprises v. Badia , No. 21-1871 (Iowa App. Dec. 21, 2022) This action involved a settlement agreement in which the claimant, following the agreement to settle her case, attempted to propose alternative terms in the settlement agreement.  Defendants sought to enforce the settlement agreement it claimed to have with claimant.  During the course of these proceedings, claimant's counsel was deposed, with counsel not delving into matters that were the subject of attorney-client privilege.  Defendants moved for summary judgment, based on emails exchanged between counsel confirming the terms of the settlement.  Claimant resisted the motion for summary judgment, citing communication problems with counsel and an allegation to she did not authorize counsel to settle the matter on her behalf.  The district court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Court noted that generally counsel has the power to bind a client to any agreement...

  Tuttle v. Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner , No. 21-1246 (Iowa App. Dec 21, 2022) During the course of claimant's workers' compensation case, she sought discovery of surveillance conducted by the employer.  the employer stated that there was "none."  In a later DME, the employer indicated to the doctor that visual images existed demonstrated claimant as she walked into work and left work.  Claimant sought this material from the doctor via subpoena, which the doctor provided.  The employer sought a protective order regarding the subpoena and sought sanctions against claimant.  The deputy found that the agency lacked jurisdiction to quash the subpoena and indicated the employer would need to proceed with an action in district court.  The deputy also found, however, that the protective order could be challenged and issued a protective order in the form of Dr. Abernathey's fees, in the amount of $3900. Claimant filed an interlocutory appeal to the...