Recent Case Law

Iowa Workers' Compensation Decisions of Note

 

Venegas v. IBP, Inc., 638 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa 2002)

 
Venegas hurt his back during his third year of work for IBP and had surgery.  He had a history of prior back injuries with a different employer, and had been given permanent restrictions against heavy lifting and frequent bending.  He recovered the equivalent of 35% PPD benefits under California law.

 After his IBP injury, Venegas was not able to return to work despite efforts to accommodate him.  The deputy found that Venegas had a 55% industrial disability, but apportioned out the previous 35% disability and attributed 20% of the disability to the IBP injury.  The deputy found that the "full responsibility rule" is limited to injuries with the same employer.  The commissioner affirmed.  The Iowa Supreme Court reversed, holding that the "full responsibility rule" applies to all work-related disabilities, regardless of the identity of the employer.

 
Fashion Bug v. McLoud, (unpublished), 2002 WL 21844 (Iowa App. 2002) and Brown v. Quik Trip, 641 N.W.2d 725 (Iowa 2002).

 
These cases set forth the tests used in determining if a purely mental injury is compensable under Iowa's Workers' Compensation Act.  In order for a claimant to recover for a purely mental injury both tests must be satisfied.

 
The first test involves medical causation.  Medical causation is a question of fact and requires the claimant to show a causal connection between the mental injury and the employment.  This is almost always going to be done through the use of medical records or the testimony of a doctor, psychiatrist, or other medical health professional.

 
The second test is legal causation.  This is a question of law and requires the claimant to demonstrate the mental injury was caused by workplace stress of greater magnitude than the day-to-day mental stresses experienced by other workers employed in the same or similar jobs, regardless of the employer.  (These tests come from the published case of Dunlavey v. Economy Fire & Cas. Co., 526 N.W.2d 845 (1995).  To satisfy this test the claimant must to produce evidence of the normal day-to-day stresses experienced by similar workers.  This is best done with coworkers or employees of the same employer, however employees in the same field but with a different employer can be used (i.e. the claimant in Fashion Bug testified about the normal stresses she had at other retail jobs and also put on the testimony of her co-managers).

 
Quik Trip provides an exception to the rule of requiring evidence of the normal day-to-day stresses of the employee's work to satisfy the legal causation test.  In Quik Trip the plaintiff witnessed a customer get shot in the leg and then had clean up the blood.  Then, six days later, he was the victim of a robbery while working at a different Quik Trip.  At trial he failed to produce evidence of the normal day-to-day stresses of a clerk at a gas station/convenience store.  However, the Iowa Supreme Court still found his mental injury compensable, stating that when the precipitating event is of a sudden traumatic nature from an unexpected cause or unusual strain, the legal causation test is met despite the failure to produce evidence of the normal day-to-day stress on other employees.