Iowa Supreme Court Says Supervisor Is Not Protected When Protecting Injured Employees
The Iowa Supreme Court considered the firing of a supervisor, who intervened when injured workers he was supervising were not being treated fairly. In Ballalatak v. All Iowa Agriculture Association, 781 N.W. 2d 272 (Iowa 2101), filed on April 16, 2010, the Iowa Supreme Court noted that injured workers who are terminated because they pursue a workers’ compensation claim can pursue a claim against the employer for reinstatement and back pay. However, the Court refused to extend that same protection to a supervisor who advocates for employees he supervises, when he thinks that the workers were not having their workers’ compensation claims handled fairly.
The protection for workers was first recognized in 1988, in Springer v. Weeks & Leo Co., 429 N.W.2d 558, 560 (1988), based on Section 85.18 of the Iowa Code, a portion of the workers’ compensation statute, which prevents employers from using any device that serves to unfairly deprive workers of workers’ compensation benefits. The Court in Springer noted that workers have a right to pursue work injury claims, that an employer is barred from any device to deny workers’ compensation benefits, and that filing a workers’ compensation claim is protected under Section 85.18.
Mr. Ballalatak asked the Court to find that Section 85.18, or the recently developed case law in wrongful termination, protects him from retaliatory discharge as well, citing the case law protecting persons from discharge when “(1) exercising a statutory right or privilege, (2) refusing to commit an unlawful act, (3) performing a statutory obligation, and (4) reporting a statutory violation.” See Jasper v. H. Nizam, Inc., 764 N.W.2d 751, 762 (Iowa 2009).
The Iowa Supreme Court simply refused to take the leap from protecting workers who have been subjected to retaliation, to supervisors or others who have attempted to intervene. One must wonder if a co-worker who tells an adjustor something that they don’t want to hear can be terminated. Presumably, a co-worker who testifies in a hearing would have some protection from retaliation, while “performing a statutory obligation” to tell the truth, but Ballalatak may raise questions on that point.
Iowa Employer Subject to Penalty for Not Paying Injured Worker With Zero Impairment
On April 21, 2010, the Iowa Court of Appeals issued an opinion that will almost certainly be appealed, and will cause considerable discussion among insurance carriers and employers. In Williams v. KW Products and Hartford Insurance, the Iowa Court of Appeals considered the claim of an injured worker with bilateral forearm tendonitis, who was given zero impairment by his treating orthopædic surgeon. At the same time, the treating doctor recommended “moderate” restrictions in the use of the arms and rare internal rotation of the forearms, and suggested that he find another job.
A second orthopædic examination, performed as an Independent Medical Examination, found permanent impairment and permanent restrictions. The case went to hearing, and the Deputy Workers’ Compensation Commissioner found that Mr. Williams had sustained a 15% impairment to the body as a whole, based on the opinion of the IME opinion. The arbitration decision noted that it seemed inconsistent to have permanent restrictions but no permanent impairment, despite defendants’ argument that such restrictions were simply “prophylactic,” to avoid future reinjury. The Deputy Commissioner found a 15% loss to the body as a whole, and the Commissioner affirmed.
Claimant also requested penalty benefits under §86.13 of the Iowa Code, based on the defendants’ failure to pay any permanent partial disability benefits. Defendants argued that the treating orthopædic surgeon assigned no permanent impairment, so there was no duty to pay for the medical impairment. The Deputy Workers’ Compensation Commissioner awarded no penalty benefits on the weight of the treating doctor’s finding of zero impairment. The Commissioner affirmed the arbitration decision, as did the Iowa District Court.
However, relying on Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law § 135.03 at 135-02, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the denial of penalty benefits. The Court of Appeals noted that the defendants had an ongoing duty to investigate the claimant’s entitlement to permanent partial disability benefits, and that the treating doctor’s recommendation of permanent restrictions triggered a duty to investigate and to pay the claimant for his loss of use of this arms.
This case will almost certainly be appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court. If upheld, Williams v. KW Products will cause insurance carriers and employers to look more closely at the findings of the treating doctors before simply refusing to pay any permanent disability benefits.
Iowa: Employee Bowling League Injury Not Work-Related
Extensively citing Larson’s definitive work on Workers’ Compensation, the Iowa Court of Appeals found that an employee who is injured in a company bowling event is not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits, reversing the finding of the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner. On June 11, 2005, while participating in a bowling event organized by the employee activity committee of Gazette Communications, Robert Powell was injured, and asserted that this was a work injury. The Iowa Supreme Court had previously held that a heart attack in the course of an employee basketball league was a covered work injury.
Powell relied on a 1984 decision of the Iowa Supreme Court, Briar Cliff College v. Campolo, 360 N.W.2d 91, 94 (Iowa 1984), which found that a fatal heart attack sustained by a Professor at Briar Cliff College while playing intramural basketball on college property was work-related. In that case, the college administration had encouraged college faculty to take part in intramural sports, to interact with students. Relying on “Larson’s business-related benefit test,” articulated in Larson’s Workers’ Compensation, the Iowa Supreme Court found that Professor Campolo’s participation in the intramural game provided a direct benefit to Briar Cliff College, in the recruitment and retention of students.
The Campolo decision and heart attacks at work in Iowa are discussed in more detail in an article of the Drake Law Review, “INSURANCE LAW ANNUAL: When Are Heart Attacks Compensable Injuries Under Iowa Workers’ Compensation Law?”, 49 Drake L. Rev. 621 (2001). The Commissioner relied on the Campolo decision to award benefits. However, in the present case, the Iowa Court of Appeals distinguished that decision, noting that Gazette Communications did not derive any benefit other than increased employee morale. The Iowa Court of Appeals applied the standard set out at 2 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson’s Worker’s Compensation Law § 22.01, at 22-2 (2010), that the activity giving rise to the injury must provide some specific benefit to the employer, beyond “the intangible value of improvement of employee health and morale that is common to all kinds of recreation and social life.”
Iowa: Employee Compensated for an Injury While Tying His Boots
On appeal to the head of the Iowa workers’ compensation agency, a utility worker was compensated for a knee injury sustained while tying his boot at work, in Kerslake v. Alliant Energy, File No. 5028428, Appeal Decision by Commissioner Godfrey filed March 22, 2011.
Mr. Kerslake, an employee of Alliant Energy, was preparing to climb a utility pole, as part of a test to be recertified for pole rescue work. To take the test, the claimant had to wear specialized “pole-climbing” boots, to climb the pole and to pass the test. Although he had put the boots on at home, he bent over at work to tighten the laces. The agency found that the boot laces had to be tight to brace his legs while climbing the pole. As he was tightening the laces, he injured his knee. While the employer argued that the employee was simply taking part in an “innocuous” activity, similar to one that he might do regardless of work, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner decided on appeal that the act of tightening his “pole-climbing” boots was a specific, work-related duty, to prepare to be recertified as part of his job. He received an award of 12.5% impairment to the lower extremity, due to an ensuing knee injury.
Welcome
Welcome to the website of H. Edwin Detlie, Attorney, Past President of the Iowa Association of Workers’ Compensation Lawyers, Inc. (2004-5). His practice is limited to Workers’ Compensation and Social Security Disability/SSI appeals. While he has practiced law in Ottumwa, Iowa since 1982, he opened a second law office in Dexter, Iowa, just west of Des Moines, in 2009.
Mr. Detlie was recently invited to join the Larson’s National Workers’ Compensation Advisory Board for LexisNexis, the world’s largest legal publisher. He is a member of the Iowa Association for Justice Workers’ Compensation Section and the Work Injury Litigation Group (WILG) a national organization of workers’ attorneys concerning workers’ compensation claims.
He was recently appointed to serve as Chair of the Law Practice Management Committee of the Iowa State Bar Association, is a long-time Sustaining Member of the National Organization of Social Security Claimants’ Representatives (NOSSCR), and was recently appointed to the NOSSCR Technology Committee.
Read more