Vicky Norton v. Hy-Vee, Inc., 16-1299

Vicky Norton injured her neck/back at work in 2009; Hy‑Vee accepted the injury and paid benefits but disputes arose over permanent disability extent.
At the arbitration hearing the deputy commissioner found Norton reached MMI in 2011, that her injury contributed to anxiety/depression, and awarded a 70% industrial disability rating based on multiple factors including her retained pharmacy‑technician niche and six‑hour workday.
Both parties appealed: Norton sought permanent total disability; Hy‑Vee argued the award should be 25% and contested causation for mental injury.
The workers’ compensation commissioner affirmed the 70% rating, reasoning the accommodated job did not constitute sheltered employment and that Norton likely could find comparable work in the market; the commissioner also explained review‑reopening would be available if accommodations ceased and her earning capacity worsened.
Norton sought judicial review claiming the commissioner misinterpreted Iowa law by allowing a downward adjustment of disability based on employer accommodation; the district court affirmed the agency, and Norton appealed to this Court of Appeals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the commissioner misinterpreted Iowa case law on considering accommodated work when setting industrial disability	Norton: Agency impermissibly reduced/relied on accommodated work; accommodated employment must be disregarded unless equivalent jobs exist in competitive market	Hy‑Vee: No downward adjustment was made; agency correctly considered accommodated work to the extent it reflected market‑transferable earning capacity	Court: No misinterpretation — commissioner’s decision consistent with precedent (accommodation may be considered only if it discloses discernible, market‑available earning capacity); affirmed agency
Whether the commissioner’s 70% rating was an unlawful downward adjustment from total disability based on accommodation	Norton: Rating reflects an illicit downward adjustment due to accommodation	Hy‑Vee: Rating based on multiple factors and Norton’s ability to continue/find comparable work; not reduced from a total finding	Court: Rating was supported by evidence and not an unlawful downward adjustment; review‑reopening remains available if circumstances change

U.S. West Commc’n, Inc. v. Overholser, 566 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 1997) (accommodation ordinarily should not reduce disability award unless it distorts true earning capacity)
Gallardo v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 482 N.W.2d 393 (Iowa 1992) (remanded where prior award was reduced based on accommodation and later accommodations ceased; factual limitations to its scope)
Murillo v. Blackhawk Foundry, 571 N.W.2d 16 (Iowa 1997) (employer accommodations may be considered only to the limited extent the accommodated job discloses a discernible earning capacity available in the competitive market)
Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143 (Iowa 1996) (employer modifications are not determinative of industrial disability rating)
Thilges v. Snap‑On Tools Corp., 528 N.W.2d 614 (Iowa 1995) (loss of earning capacity measured by ability to earn in competitive market, not by generosity of current employer)
Acuity Ins. v. Foreman, 684 N.W.2d 212 (Iowa 2004) (commissioner may find continued employment does not reflect transferable earning capacity and may award total disability)