Iowa Workers' Compensation

  Delaney v. Second Injury Fund , No. 23-0182 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant's petition against the Second Injury Fund was dismissed because the deputy concluded claimant had not suffered a compensable second injury.  The deputy found that claimant's second injury, because it was combined with a non-scheduled injury rendered claimant's Fund claim non-compensable, citing Braden v. SIF.   This finding was affirmed by the commissioner and the district court. Claimant's second injury was an injury to her right lower extremity, which resulted in a right total knee arthroplasty, for which claimant was restricted from work for a time.  She ultimately had no restrictions from the knee replacement. Subsequent to being found at MMI, claimant developed post-surgery lymphedema, which was likely due to destruction of claimant's lymph from the knee replacement surgery.  Claimant's IME provided a 37% impairment of the lower extremity for the knee replacement and a 3% impai...

  Spence v N&L Parkison Trucking, Inc. , No. 23-0144 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant filed a workers' compensation claim alleging that he suffered a shoulder injury at work.  The doctors who he saw related to the injury found that claimant had a rotator cuff injury, but noted claimant had related them to the pain in his shoulder from an earlier two weeks earlier.  An IME related claimant's injury to the work events and provided him with a 12% impairment to the body as a whole as a result of the injury.  The deputy found claimant was not credible in part due to his past crimes of dishonesty and denied benefits and the commissioner affirmed.  The district court affirmed the decision of the agency. The Court of Appeals rejected claimant's argument that the decision of the commissioner was not supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that due regard must be given to the commissioner discretion to accept or reject testimony based on witness cre...

  Stuart v. Dickten Masch Plastics, LLC , No. 23-0018 (Iowa App. Oct. 25, 2023) Claimant filed a review-reopening petition after she lost her job due to a plant closure.  Claimant had been "heavily" accommodated at work for her work-related disability, and was allowed to sit during the day and take breaks that  were not available to other workers.  She was unable to find work following the plant closure.  The commissioner ruled that when a worker loses her job as a result of a plant closure, she cannot show the required economic change regardless of any other factors preventing her from finding a new job and denied relief to claimant. At hearing, claimant testified that following the plant closure, she had attempting to find work, noting that she had sent out two dozen applications and  had only three responses, which were fruitless once the employers learned of her disability. Defendants presented testimony from a vocational expert regarding claimant's emp...

  Prairie View Management, Inc. v. Moran , No. 22-2023 (Iowa App. Sept. 27, 2023) Claimant emailed her employer with her resignation on December 5, 2019, with the resignation being effective on December 20.  On December 9, she was injured at work.  She submitted a formal letter of resignation a day after the injury, giving the same December 20 end date.  After the injury, claimant's duties were modified.  Claimant testified that she verbally sought to rescind her resignation, but did not file a written resignation.  The employer never offered work to claimant after December 20 and did not pay temporary benefits. The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to penalty benefits and temporary total disability benefits, as the employer had never offered work to claimant.  On judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the agency and concluded that claimant was not entitled to penalty or temporary benefits.  The Court of Appea...

  Liford v. Christensen Farms and Second Injury Fund , No. 22-1747 (Iowa App. Aug. 9, 2023) Claimant was denied benefits from the Fund for a left knee injury because this injury was found to be a sequella of an earlier right knee injury and not a separate and distinct second injury.  The left knee injury was traced by the physicians to claimant's "babying" his right knee following an injury to that knee.  The deputy found the left knee injury was a sequela, based on the opinions of Dr. Vincent and Dr. Kuhnlein.  These findings were affirmed by the commissioner and the district court. On appeal, claimant argues that the underlying decisions incorrectly interpreted Gumm v. Easter Seal Society of Iowa , 943 N.W.2d 23, 25 (Iowa 2020).  Claimant argues that Gumm should only be applied where a cumulative injury stems from the aggravation of an earlier injury, not in cases where a sequela injury develops.  The Court rejects this view of Gumm , finding that a secon...

P.M. Lattner Mfg. Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa App. June 7, 2023) The district court concluded that claimant was not entitled to payment for an IME and remanded the agency decision for consideration of the appropriate credit for a prior injury with the same employer.   The Court of Appeals remands to the commissioner to determine the fee related to claimant's right shoulder injury and also finds that the remand to determine credit was appropriate. Claimant had earlier suffered an injury at work to his right shoulder which resulted in a full commutation of benefits.  As a part of this settlement, the employer received a credit for permanent impairment to claimant's shoulder against future injuries to the same shoulder. Nine years later, claimant suffered another injury to the shoulder and obtained an IME for the shoulder.  The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to payment for the IME and found that defendant was not entitled to credit for the prior should...

  Shrum v. Boldt Group, Inc. , No. 22-0710 (Iowa App. June 7, 2023) In this action, the deputy concluded that claiant had sustained injuries to his right should, right bicep and right neck.  On appeal, the commissioner concluded that claimant's conditions did not arise out of employment and reversed the award.  Claimant appealed and the district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. On review, claimant alleged that substantial evidence supported the "deputy's" findings that claimant's injuries arose out of employment.  The Court notes, however, that it is the commissioner's final decision that is subject to judicial review, not the deputy's decision, citing Giere v. Aase Haugen Homes, Inc. , 146 N.W.2d 911, 915 (Iowa 1966).  Thus, on review, the court's role was to determine whether the commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence. In affirming the decision of the commissioner, the Court found that the decision was ...