In Millenkamp v. Millenkamp Cattle and Allied Insurance, the Court found that the employer and carrier could delay payment of benefits to the injured worker while the award was reviewed within the agency. The Iowa Code, Section 86.13, allows for an award of penalty benefits, up to 50% of benefits which have accrued but have not been paid. Generally, delay of more than 11 days without reason is considered as the basis for awards of up to 50%.

In this case, the worker asked for penalty benefits for failure to pay the award while the appeal was pending between the Deputy Workers’ Compensation Commissioner and the Commissioner. Initially, on remand, a Deputy Workers’ Compensation Commissioner, in the capacity of an Administrative Law Judge, agreed that penalty benefits were appropriate. The Commissioner initially upheld that award, but on reconsideration, reversed himself and the Deputy Commissioner, and ruled that penalty benefits were not appropriate under the facts of this case. Specifically, the Commissioner held that the deputy’s decision was a “proposed decision only,” subject to intra-agency appeal. The commissioner held that, “if defendants’ denial of benefits was fairly debatable before the decision, it was almost certainly fairly debatable after the decision.” The commissioner noted that the ruling was limited to the facts of the current case, and might be different on different facts.

The Iowa Court of Appeals upheld the decision not to award penalty benefits under Section 86.13.

Previously, the agency had a rule allowing an award to the prevailing party for the cost of doctor opinions, but in practice limited such awards to $150.00. The Appeal Decision in Caven cited the actual language of the rule, 876 Iowa Administrative Code 4.33, which contains no such limit on the cost of obtaining medical reports.

In practice, prevailing parties may spend large amounts obtaining reports from treating physicians. The agency had set a limit of $150.00 for costs of physician reports about 25 years ago, when $150.00 was a more reasonable amount. In Caven, the agency precedent limiting the costs to $150.00 was overturned. The physician in the Caven case charged $972.00 for the medical report, and the agency directed the employer to pay the full amount.

While the self-insured employer and its workers’ compensation claims administrator believed that the parties had reached a legal agreement to settle the claim, the injured worker testified that he had simply said that he wanted to look over the settlement papers, and that he would then make up his mind. The Court found that there was not sufficient evidence of an enforceable legal contract. Noting that the employer would have to produce “clear, satisfactory, and convincing evidence” that a “meeting of the minds” existed, sufficient to show a valid, enforceable contract, the Court found that the proof did not meet the employer’s burden.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Iowa District Court ruling that there was no enforceable settlement. No decision has been made on whether to publish the opinion.

In Drake University v. Davis, filed July 17, 2009, the Court reviewed a decision that found permanent partial disability based on earlier work injuries, and then found permanent total disability based on a work injury at Drake University. The Iowa District Court found that Drake should not be responsible for the earlier injuries, citing Section 85.34(7) of the Iowa Code. However, the Iowa Supreme Court noted that the 2004 changes only referred to permanent partial disability awards. In this case, the Commissioner and the Court found that Davis was permanently totally disabled due to the injury at Drake University . Since the change in the law only applied to permanent partial disability awards, the Court found that Section 85.34(7) of the Iowa Code did not apply, noting, “Permanent total disability benefits are not subject to apportionment under section 85.34(7).”

There are web hosting services that specialize in WordPress and other Content Management System programs, but I have had good results from Siteground.

There are several exellent books available on WordPress, but you should look for a book on the most current release of WordPress, currently release 2.9.

WordPress is not a “lite” version of traditional web design software. It works completely differently, based on a Content Management System approach, and works much better in most respects than traditional web designing tools. The administrator can allow multiple users to contribute content, like a blog, but the administrator controls the design and overall content. There are literally hundreds of features, many contained in the release of the software itself and others which are free, that can add components such as podcasting, calendars, slideshows, flash presentations, and almost anything else that a web designer needs.  Here is a link to the latest video on the new version of WordPress:

Click here to contact us.

For two instructional videos on using LexisNexis HotDocs, Adobe Acrobat and LexisNexis CaseMap software to more effectively represent clients at and before hearing, click below. While the two videos have the same title, they are two separate presentations in a series on representing clients in disability appeals.

Note: H. Edwin Detlie has served as a consultant to LexisNexis, the largest legal publisher in the world, concerning software for attorneys who handle disability appeals, including LexisNexis HotDocs, LexisNexis Total Practice Advantage for Social Security. He also publishes a blog on Iowa Workers’ Compensation issues for LexisNexis and serves on the LexisNexis Larson’s National Workers’ Compensation Advisory Board; his opinions as to the use of LexisNexis software should be considered in light of such an ongoing consultant basis.

Click the object below to see the screencast.

When would you want to submit a proposed Fully Favorable Decision, using a FIT Template?

• First and most common, when you have a hearing, you are certain that the ALJ will allow benefits, and you know the precise restrictions that the ALJ is going to find, you can prepare a proposed decision. This might happen when an ALJ submits a single hypothetical to a vocational expert in a hearing, and the vocational expert finds that your client cannot do any work within those restrictions. Likewise, if an ALJ announces that he or she will find that your client meets a specific section of the Listings of Impairments, and why, you can draft a proposed decision.
• Second, if you have a client waiting for a hearing, who clearly meets a Listing, particularly the definition of Mild Mental Retardation under Section 12.05 of the Listings, you can draw up a proposed Fully Favorable Decision. For the most part, though, unless you have a clear winner, submitting a pre-hearing proposed decision is not likely to succeed. The ALJ won’t sign the decision unless you have the restrictions almost exactly right.
• Third, in rare instances, some ALJs have called attorneys and non-attorney reps, asking if they would draft a proposed decision, and listing the specific elements, or faxing them a list with the elements of the decision. I haven’t heard of that happening in Iowa.

When you prepare a decision, you should give it a name based on the first four letters of the last name, and the last four letters of the Social Security Number. So a decision for James Q. Sample, SSN 123-45-6789 becomes “Samp6789.doc”. Print the file, burn it to a CD, and mail both with a cover letter to the ALJ.  You can also electronically file the proposed decision.