Loren Lee Pesicka, Jr. v. Snap-On Logistics Company a/k/a Snap-On Tools Manufacturing Company, 19-1759

In 2002 Pesicka injured his right foot at work and settled in 2006 for a permanent partial disability to the right leg (13% → 28.6 weeks under the schedule).
After multiple additional surgeries, all five toes on his right foot were eventually amputated (surgeries in 2012 and 2015); he filed a §86.14 review‑reopening petition in 2015 seeking increased benefits.
Dr. Kuhnlein’s 2016 IME rated a 36% right‑foot impairment and converted that to a 25% right lower‑extremity impairment (resulting in 55 weeks under the leg schedule); the IME also addressed a left‑knee Second Injury Fund claim.
At the reopening hearing the parties’ hearing report/stipulation identified the situs as the right leg; claimant argued separately he was entitled to 100 weeks for loss of five toes but did not move to amend the stipulation.
The deputy awarded 25% right‑lower‑extremity impairment (55 weeks) and initially full IME costs; the commissioner reduced IME reimbursement by half because the IME served a dual purpose. The district court affirmed; claimant appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant is entitled to 100 weeks for loss of all five toes despite prior settlement/stipulation to the right leg	Pesicka: amputation of great toe (40 wks) + four toes (15 wks each) mandates at least 100 weeks under §85.34(2)(h),(i)	Snap‑On: claimant is bound by prior settlement and hearing stipulation that situs is the right leg; toe loss is subsumed in the leg impairment rating; reopening cannot change situs without notice	Court held the stipulation and prior settlement control; award based on 25% leg impairment (55 weeks) is proper; separate toe awards barred.
Whether commissioner ignored subjective (non‑objective) impairments like pain and fatigue	Pesicka: lay testimony re pain, tiring, phantom pain should increase permanency	Snap‑On: commissioner considered lay testimony but reasonably credited expert medical opinion over lay accounts	Court held commissioner considered subjective evidence; substantial evidence (expert ratings) supports result; weighting experts over lay witnesses permissible.
Whether reducing IME reimbursement by 50% was an abuse of discretion	Pesicka: majority of IME concerned right leg; 50% reduction is disproportionate	Snap‑On: IME also evaluated left knee for Fund claim so costs should be apportioned	Court held 50% reduction was a reasonable approximation given dual purpose; no abuse of discretion.

Stumpff v. Second Injury Fund, 543 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1996) (standard of review for workers’ compensation agency decisions)
Staff Mgmt. v. Jimenez, 839 N.W.2d 640 (Iowa 2013) (how to interpret and give effect to stipulations in hearing reports)
Graen’s Mens Wear, Inc. v. Stille‑Pierce Agency, 329 N.W.2d 295 (Iowa 1983) (parties may place differing interpretations on stipulations)
Wilson v. Liberty Mutual Group, 666 N.W.2d 163 (Iowa 2003) (settlement estoppel principles)
Tyson Foods, Inc. v. Hedlund, 740 N.W.2d 192 (Iowa 2007) (claimant estopped from asserting different injury than settled situs)
Terwilliger v. Snap‑On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267 (Iowa 1995) (commissioner must consider all evidence, medical and nonmedical)
Miller v. Lauridsen Foods, Inc., 525 N.W.2d 417 (Iowa 1994) (lay witness testimony is relevant on extent of injury)
Sherman v. Pella Corp., 576 N.W.2d 312 (Iowa 1998) (commissioner decides weight of expert testimony)
Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839 (Iowa 2011) (substantial‑evidence standard for agency fact findings)
IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 2010) (abuse of discretion standard for agency discretionary acts)
Lauhoff Grain Co. v. McIntosh, 395 N.W.2d 834 (Iowa 1986) (discussion of the scheduled‑injury valuation approach)