 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dico3/15/2000
) the employee sustained loss, or loss of use of another such member or an organ through a work-related injury; and (3) there must be some permanent disability from the injuries. Second Injury Fund v. Shank, 516 N.W.2d 808, 812 (Iowa 1994).
The full responsibility rule applies as follows:
n a situation of two successive work-related injuries, the employer is generally held liable for the entire disability resulting from the combination of the prior disability and the present injury .
Celotex Corp., 541 N.W.2d at 254. Thus, an employer liable for a current injury is also liable for any pre-existing industrial disability caused by a work-related injury when that disability combines with industrial disability caused by a later injury. Nelson, 544 N.W.2d at 265. There is no provision in our workers' compensation law for apportionment in the case of successive injuries sustained by an employee in the same employment, regardless of whether or not the employee receives compensation for the prior injury. Celotex, 541 N.W.2d at 256.
The full responsibility rule would apply to the September 1994 injury only if that injury was actually the last injury resulting in industrial disability. As noted above, an employer is liable for a pre-existing industrial disability caused by a work-related injury when the pre-existing disability combines with industrial disability caused by a later injury. Nelson, 544 N.W.2d at 265. Application of the rule presupposes the later injury resulted in industrial disability.
An employee's condition must be more than slightly aggravated to be considered a personal injury under Iowa law. Ziegler v. U.S. Gympsum Co., 252 Iowa 613, 620, 106 N.W.2d 591, 595 (1960). Under the facts of the present case the Industrial Commissioner found the September 1994 injury did not result in industrial disability, but was only a brief, temporary aggravation of Lovell's earlier injuries. The Commissioner determined the September 1994 injury did not increase Lovell's industrial disability.
There is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's findings. Dr. Carlstrom testified:
Q. Now, with regard to the neck and the knee, can you tell me, Doctor, whether the complaints asserted by Mr. Lovell are related at all to the last injury , that of September 1994? A. Yes.
Q. And what's your opinion with regard to that, Doctor? A. I don't think they are related to that injury .
He also testified Lovell did not have any loss of range of motion after the third injury . He testified the third injury did not result in any change to the structure of Lovell's spine.
Having found the September 1994 injury did not result in industrial disability, we therefore conclude the full responsibility rule does not apply to that injury.
III. INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY
DICO claims the Industrial Commissioner should have assigned at least part of Lovell's industrial disability to the September 1994 injury . As discussed above, however, there is substantial evidence in the record to show the September 1994 injury did not result in any additional industrial disability for Lovell. We find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Commissioner's decision not to assign part of Lovell's industrial disability to the September 1994 injury.
We affirm the decision of the Industrial Commissioner and the district court.
AFFIRMED.
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|