Anita Gumm
v.
Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc., American Compensation Ins. Co., and SFM Insurance Company
Petitioner appealed from a district court ruling denying her petition for judicial review and upholding a decision of the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner finding she had failed to prove a cumulative workplace injury. Petitioner argues she had established the legal requirements for a compensable injury under Floyd v. Quaker Oats, 646 N.W.2d 105 (Iowa 2002), for a cumulative aggravation of a prior workplace injury and the district court and commissioner erred in finding otherwise. The court of appeals reversed and remanded for further proceedings. Respondents seek further review.
Resister
Anita Gumm
Applicant
Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc., American Compensation Ins. Co., and SFM Insurance Company
Attorney for the Resister
Joseph S. Powell
Attorneys for the Applicant
Lee P. Hook and Tyler S. Smith, for Easter Seal Society of Iowa, Inc. and SFM Insurance Company
Thomas D. Wolle, for American Compensation Ins. Co.
Supreme Court
Oral Argument Schedule
15-15-5
Dec 17, 2019 1:30 PM
Briefs
Supreme Court Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Paul Scott, Judge. REVERSED AND REMANDED. Considered by Doyle, P.J., Mullins, J., and Danilson, S.J. Opinion by Doyle, P.J. Dissent by Mullins, J. (10 pages)
Anita Gumm appeals the denial of her petition for judicial review upholding the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s denial of her petition asserting she sustained a cumulative workplace injury. OPINION HOLDS: We disagree with the agency and district court that Gumm was required to establish she sustained a distinct and discreet disability to recover on a cumulative-injury claim under the circumstances presented. Under Floyd v. Quaker Oats, 646 N.W.2d 105, 108 (Iowa 2002), Gumm’s showing of an aggravation of her injury was sufficient to establish a cumulative injury. Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s denial of Gumm’s petition for judicial review and remand to the commissioner. DISSENT ASSERTS: I respectfully dissent because I do not believe the Floyd case authorizes Gumm to pursue a cumulative injury claim after a successful resolution of a claim for an underlying injury.