Kelly Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corporation
913 N.W.2d 235
| Iowa | 2018Background
- Brewer-Strong, an HNI employee, developed bilateral carpal tunnel (and related) conditions; HNI initially denied compensability but later authorized Dr. Brian Adams after obtaining a work-related opinion.
- HNI amended its answer to admit liability on November 8, 2012, and designated Dr. Adams as the authorized treating physician; it repeatedly warned Brewer-Strong not to seek unauthorized care.
- Brewer-Strong declined further visits with Dr. Adams, obtained treatment from unauthorized Dr. VonGillern, and underwent bilateral surgeries (May–June 2013), missing work May 10–July 21, 2013.
- HNI refused to pay healing-period benefits tied to the post-surgical time off, asserting an authorization defense; it paid other compensation amounts separately.
- The commissioner and the district court denied healing-period benefits, concluding HNI regained the right to control care after admitting liability and that Brewer-Strong failed to prove the unauthorized care produced a more favorable medical outcome than authorized care under Bell Bros.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an employer who initially denies liability can later regain control over medical care by admitting liability | Brewer-Strong: HNI forfeited authorization rights when the deputy commissioner dismissed claimant's first alternate-care petition while HNI contested compensability; law-of-the-case bars HNI from asserting authorization defense | HNI: After amending its answer to admit liability and offering authorized care, it regained statutory right to choose care and may assert authorization defense | Court: Employer may regain control after later admitting liability; R.R. Donnelly limited to facts where compensability remained denied; law-of-the-case inapplicable because facts materially changed |
| Standard claimant must meet to recover healing-period benefits for unauthorized care | Brewer-Strong: Bell Bros. test imposes nearly impossible speculative burden and should be overturned or relaxed | HNI: Bell Bros. properly balances employer's statutory right to choose care with employee protections; claimant must show unauthorized care was reasonable, beneficial, and produced a more favorable medical outcome | Court: Reaffirms Bell Bros.; claimant must prove by preponderance unauthorized care was reasonable and provided a more favorable medical outcome than authorized care |
| Whether Bell Bros. test applies to entitlement to healing-period benefits (not just reimbursement for costs) | Brewer-Strong: Bell Bros. should be limited to monetary reimbursement, not healing-period benefits; denying benefits here is a harsh penalty when same surgery likely would have been performed by authorized physician | HNI: Bell Bros. applies to healing-period benefits because healing benefits are tied to authorized treatment under the statutory scheme | Held: Bell Bros. applies to healing-period benefits; denying benefits for unauthorized care is consistent with Iowa Code §§85.27 and 85.34 and statutory structure |
| Application of Bell Bros. to these facts (did claimant meet the test) | Brewer-Strong: Surgeries relieved symptoms and likely would have been performed by authorized physician; denial is unfair | HNI: Record lacks proof that unauthorized care produced a more favorable outcome than authorized care; claimant refused authorized reevaluation | Held: Brewer-Strong failed to prove unauthorized care produced a more favorable outcome; denial of healing-period benefits affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Bros. Heating & Air Conditioning v. Gwinn, 779 N.W.2d 193 (Iowa 2010) (establishes that unauthorized care is compensable only if claimant proves by a preponderance that the care was reasonable, beneficial, and produced a more favorable medical outcome than employer-authorized care)
- R.R. Donnelly & Sons v. Barnett, 670 N.W.2d 190 (Iowa 2003) (employer authorization defense is inapplicable when the commissioner dismissed alternate-care petition on procedural grounds because compensability was disputed)
- Ramirez-Trujillo v. Quality Egg, L.L.C., 878 N.W.2d 759 (Iowa 2016) (discusses chapter 85’s purpose to encourage prompt compensation and minimal litigation)
- Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr., 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012) (standards of review for agency statutory interpretation and deference discussion)
- Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d 169 (Iowa 2007) (agency's application of law to facts is vested in commissioner; court alters only for irrational application)