2 N.W.3d 880
Iowa2024Background
- Justin Loew, an employee of Menard, Inc., suffered two lower back injuries, first in 2015 and then in 2018 while working for the same employer.
- For the 2015 injury, Loew was awarded workers’ compensation for a 20% functional impairment, calculated as a 30% industrial disability (loss of earning capacity) under the law at that time.
- For the 2018 injury, after legislative changes, Loew was only eligible for compensation based on the functional impairment method and not the industrial method because he returned to similar or greater wages.
- The workers’ compensation commissioner denied Loew’s claim for the additional 8% functional impairment from the 2018 injury, reasoning Menard was entitled to an offset for the earlier payment.
- Both administrative appeals and district court review upheld the commissioner’s denial, leading Loew to appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether compensation for a new functional impairment can be offset by a prior industrial disability award | Loew argued he should be compensated for the new 8% functional impairment, and the prior industrial disability award (based on earning capacity) should not offset it | Menard argued it was entitled to a credit for the prior 30% industrial disability, since combined impairment (28%) did not exceed prior compensation | The court held Loew is entitled to compensation for the new injury; offsetting different measurement methods (industrial vs. functional) is improper |
| Application of Iowa Code § 85.34(7) to new vs. preexisting disabilities | Loew contended § 85.34(7) does not apply, as he sought compensation for a new disability, not a preexisting one | Menard relied on § 85.34(7) to avoid double compensation, arguing for credit against the new claim | Court found § 85.34(7) prevents double recovery but does not bar compensation for genuinely new injuries |
| Whether benefits must be paid based on the statutory method in effect at the time of injury | Loew argued the parties had stipulated and the statute required compensation based only on functional impairment | Menard did not contest the method but claimed an offset was required regardless | The court agreed, compensation must be based on functional impairment for the new injury under current law |
| Whether comparing industrial disability and functional impairment awards is legally permissible | Loew argued equating the two is comparing incommensurables (apples to oranges) | Menard argued it should be able to offset its prior payment, regardless of method | The court held the two compensation types are incommensurable and may not be offset |
Key Cases Cited
- Sherman v. Pella Corp., 576 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 1998) (explains difference between functional impairment and industrial disability)
- Cowell v. All-American, Inc., 308 N.W.2d 92 (Iowa 1981) (states industrial disability can be less than, equal to, or more than functional impairment)
- Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, 872 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 2015) (outlines Iowa workers’ compensation system and statutory construction rules)
- Second Inj. Fund of Iowa v. Bergeson, 526 N.W.2d 543 (Iowa 1995) (distinguishes scheduled and unscheduled injuries in workers’ compensation law)