Iowa Workers' Compensation

Davis v. Gordon Food Service, Inc. , No. 22-1944 (Iowa App. Feb. 21, 2024) Claimant suffered an injury at work.  Pursuant to the employer's drug policy, claimant took a drug test following the injury, which was positive for methamphetamines.  The test was not conducted in accordance with 730.5, which requires that two samples be taken to allow the person being tested to have the samples independently tested.  At hearing, the deputy concluded that the violation of 730.5 did not make the admission of the drug test inadmissible for purposes of the workers' compensation act.  The deputy also concluded that claimant did not rebut the presumption that he was intoxicated under 85.16 of the Code, despite the fact that claimant testified that he had not taken drugs for four days before the injury and there was no testimony that claimant was acting in an intoxicated manner and no evidence that intoxication led to the injury.  The commissioner affirmed, as did the district court on judici

Loew v. Menard, Inc. , No. 22-1894 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a low back injury resulting in a 20% functional impairment and a resulting 30% award of industrial disability.  Claimant suffered a second work-related back injury, which was compensated functionally as he continued to work for the employer earning wages in excess of those at the time of the injury.  As a result of the second award, claimant was found to have a 28% functional disability.  The commissioner concluded that the employer was not required to pay additional benefits for the second injury, as the employer received a credit for the 30% award that had previously been paid, which was in excess of the 28% functional award.  The district court affirmed the commissioner's decision.  The Supreme Court accepted review of the claim. The Court first notes that Iowa's worker's is statutorily based and that the statute is "liberally construe[d] . . .in claimant's favor to effectuate the statute&#

P.M. Lattner Manufacturing Co. v. Rife , No. 22-1421 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) Claimant suffered a right shoulder injury in 2009, which ultimately resulted in a commutation settlement for 29.6% of the body as a whole.  Claimant subsequently suffered another injury to the right shoulder in 2018, following changes to the Code which made shoulder injuries unscheduled.  At hearing, claimant was awarded a 19% functional impairment for the injury to his right shoulder.  The employer argued that the entire award should be credited given that the earlier commutation resulted in a greater award than the second right shoulder injury.  The commissioner rejected this argument, but noted that defendants could arguably be entitled to a credit for the functional portion of the injury.  In this case, however, defendants failed to prove the amount of the credit and thus no credit was awarded. A secondary issue was also presented regarding payment of the IME.  The commissioner awarded that entire cost of the

Mid American Construction LLC v. Sandlin , No. 22-0471 (Iowa Feb. 9, 2024) In this action, the sole question presented to the Court was whether the cost of an "examination" conducted as a part of an independent medical examination was reimbursable to claimant or whether the amount to be paid was limited to the the component cost of the impairment rating under section 85.39 of the Code.  The commissioner had included the costs of the examination and the district court agreed.  On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the court limited the amount to the cost involved in providing the impairment rating and awarded only $500 of the $2200 amount charged by the IME physician. On further review, the Supreme Court reverses the decision of the Court of Appeals and holds that the cost of the examination was payable by the employer.  The Court begins by noting that section 85.39(1) and (2) both require an employee to submit to examinations as a part of the workers' compensation claims.  S

Kraft Heinz Co. v. Bynum , No. 23-0045 (Iowa App. Feb. 7, 2024) Claimant was initially employed with Kraft through a temporary employment agency.  Claimant was hired by Kraft in January of 2019.  In early February, claimant was diagnosed with a hernia and he notified the employer of his problems and need for surgery.  Following his return to work, he continued to have pain, was taken off work and received short term disability benefits.  Claimant wrote a letter to the employer in June of 2019 indicating that he had told numerous people at work about his injury and felt he should be receving workers' compensation benefits.  The commissioner concluded that the employer failed to prove that it did not receive timely notice as "it had not rebutted credible testimony that Bynum had informed multiple supervisors of the injury within the ninety-day period."  The district court concluded that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's decision. On appeal, the Court of

Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats , No 23-0393 (Iowa App Feb. 7, 2024)  Claimant retired on October 31, 2018 and notified his employer of an alleged cumulative back injury on October 22, 2019.  The commissioner concluded that the claim was barred by section 85.23, as claimant had not notified the employer of his injury in a timely manner.  Claimant's discovery rule argument was rejected,  The district court also rejected the argument. At the Court of Appeals, claimant argued that the the commissioner erred by not making separate determinations as to when claimant knew the nature, seriousness and compensable character of his injury.  The Court notes this argument, but indicates that following the appeal, the Supreme Court had issued its decision in Tweeten v. Tweeten , 2023 WL 8853036 (Iowa 2023).  The Court concluded that under Tweeten , the issue of whether the application of the discovery rule applied to only one or all three of the elements of the discovery rule "no longer guides