A Look Back: The Top 5 Developments in Iowa Work Comp Law in 2024

Nyemaster’s Workers’ Compensation team took a look back and considered the most noteworthy developments in Iowa workers’ compensation law for 2024. Here is  a brief summary of our top 5 picks (more details on each are at the links provided).

#5:   COVID-19  

Perhaps because of its unique characteristics and the uncertainty surrounding how it would apply to the work comp arena, COVID-19 ranks in our top 5. Now five years after this new virus found its way to our workplaces, it appears it is very difficult to prove contracting COVID-19 occurred at work, although not impossible. See, Collins v. D.A.R.T., No. 23-1562, 2024 WL 5153925 (Iowa Ct. App. 2024); Forget v. Polk County, File No. 22700804.01 (Arb. Dec’n. May 22, 2024). Injuries resulting from the vaccine itself are also not likely to be compensable when the employer did not mandate the vaccine, require an employee to report their vaccine status, or offer a reward or punishment associated therewith. There may be more litigation in the future on this issue, but at this time, work comp claims based upon COVID-19 illnesses or side-effect injuries from voluntary vaccinations, are likely to fail absent convincing proof of a strong work connection.  (Note: Ruling on Petition for Judicial Review still pending in Driscoll) 

#4:  IME FEES

In the Sandlin and Rife decisions, the Iowa Supreme Court held that an employee is entitled to reimbursement for the entire cost of a §85.39 IME fee, so long as it is reasonable and customary in the geographic area. The burden is on the employee to prove reasonableness, which has been found to be satisfied with a mere statement from the examining physician, verifying the reasonableness of their fees. In short, if a doctor states their IME fee is reasonable, it probably will be awarded as such, unless the employer proves otherwise. 

#3.  APPORTIONMENT

An employer’s entitlement to credit for past injuries (work-related or not) remains a complicated topic, but the Iowa Supreme Court clarified one aspect of apportionment under the oft-litigated successive disabilities statute, Iowa Code §85.34(7), with disparate outcomes. In its colorful opinion, the Court held an employer is not entitled to a credit for prior compensation that was based upon a worker’s reduced earning capacity, where compensation for the new injury is determined based upon functional loss only (comparing apples and oranges). Loew v. Menard, Inc.& XL Insurance America, 2 N.W.3d 880 (Iowa 2024).  However, the Court found employers are liable only for the increase in functional impairment resulting from the second injury. In other words, this holding allows a credit for the first functional loss against the second functional loss. We expect more guidance will be forthcoming on this issue concerning the many other possible apportionment credit scenarios that remain unsettled.

#2:  SHOULDERS, et al.

Without a doubt, the shoulder has been the subject of more debate and litigation than any other body part in recent years, due mostly to the 2017 legislative changes.  This year, the focus was on the method of compensation due when a shoulder injury is combined with another scheduled member injured in the same accident (or as a sequela).  The Iowa Supreme Court definitively answered that question in a case involving shoulder and arm injuries.  Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Anderson, 4 N.W.3d 676 (Iowa 2024); see also, Nordstrom, Inc. v Carmer, 8 N.W.3d 198 (Table) (Iowa Ct. App. 2024) (bilateral shoulder injuries).  The Court held that shoulder injuries, along with any other scheduled member injury(ies), are compensated separately via the schedule, and not industrially. This holding finally puts to rest this highly contentious issue, which places it at spot # 2 in our rankings. 

#1:  THE INTOXICATION DEFENSE 

The intoxication defense, Iowa Code § 85.16(2), earns our top spot due to its formidability. Despite constitutional, legislative, scientific, and other legal challenges, the language of this affirmative defense continues to be strictly interpreted and the presumption arising from a positive drug test remains extremely difficult to overcome. In short, if a worker is injured while intoxicated, and there is a positive drug test to prove it, the injury will likely not be compensable absent very compelling evidence the cause of the injury was unrelated to the intoxication. 

While they did not make it into our top 5, there are two related cases we thought were worthy of honorable mentions, because although they primarily involve Second Injury Fund liability, they could have broader implications. In Delaney, the Iowa Supreme Court held the Commissioner erred when he decided that an injury to the vascular system was an injury to the body as a whole as a matter of law, for purposes of Fund liability. Delaney v. Second Injury Fund, 6 N.W.3d 714 (Iowa 2024). The Court’s discussion contained a helpful review of precedent and was a good reminder that injuries capable of becoming systemic whole body injuries, are not necessarily so, when the disability is confined to the scheduled member. 

In a similar case, the Iowa Supreme Court held there could be Fund liability when a second scheduled injury results in sequelae whole body injuries. Strable v. Second Injury Fund, 2024 WL 5100098 (Iowa 2024). In this instance, the Court held both the employer and the Second Injury Fund can be liable for industrial disability benefits resulting in potentially two industrial awards. In order to prevent double recovery by the worker, the Court provided the formula the agency should use for their “new and discrete” calculation of the Fund’s liability. The Court’s holding represents a deviation from past practice and understanding. We look forward to following more developments on this issue. 

Our best wishes to you in the new year!  We invite you to continue following us in 2025 for news and highlights from the Nyemaster Workers’ Compensation team.