« Does Receipt of Unemployment Benefits Disqualify an Employee from Receiving Temporary Total Disability Work Comp Benefits? |
Main Blog Page
| Revisions to the I-9 Employment Verification Form »
On November 9, 2007, the Iowa Supreme Court revisited the workers' compensation debate about whether workers should be compensated whenever they are injured on the job site. Iowa has traditionally been an "actual risk" state, meaning that there must be some actual risk associated with the job duties or surroundings that causes injury to an employee.
Recently, however, the wisdom of this actual risk doctrine has been challenged in Iowa. In fact, the current Workers' Compensation Commissioner has rejected the actual risk doctrine and adopted the "positional risk" doctrine to determine which injuries are compensable worker's compensation claims.
In Blue v. Lakeside Casino, IWCC FIle No. 1283108 (Appeal Dec. Oct. 2002), the former Workers' Compensation Commissioner explained the legal theory he was using in a rather cursory manner and appeared to adopt the positional risk doctrine without specifically referring to that legal doctrine. Then in Albertsen v. Benco Manufacturing, IWCC FIle No. 5010764 (Appeal Dec. July 2007), the current Commissioner analyzed this issue and concluded that the positional risk doctrine was the applicable policy and legal interpretation of the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commission.
The Iowa Supreme Court again considered the wisdom of the "positional risk" doctrine on November 9, 2007. In an opinion authored by the Chief Justice of the Iowa Supreme Court, the Court rejected the Commissioner's adoption of the positional risk doctrine in the Blue case and clarified that the law of Iowa requires an actual risk be present in the workplace that causes the injury to a worker for the claim to be present.
The ramifications of this decision are certainly important in some cases. Under the positional risk doctrine, an employer would be held liable for injuries that occurred on the work premises under almost all circumstances, unless the employer could establish the injury was truly the result of a "personal" condition totally unrelated to any work activities. Employers, however, contend this is unfair and not the intention or purpose of the workers' compensation statutes. Simply because an injury occurs at the work site does not mean that the injury is caused by any work activities. For instance, an employee may be walking on a flat, hard surface and simply trip over his/her own feet. In that instance, there is no actual risk being posed by the work surroundings and the work itself did not cause the injury. Under such circumstances, employers contend they should not be held liable for the resulting injuries and medical treatment. The Iowa Supreme Court apparently agrees with this argument.
It seems to this author that the Iowa Supreme Court is not inclined to make or permit sweeping revisions to the Iowa Workers' Compensation laws. It also seems to me that the Court is taking long, hard looks at the policy decisions being made at the agency level and conducting thorough and thoughtful analyses of the potential ramifications of those policy decisions. At the present time, I believe there is a general feeling at least among employers and insurance carriers that the policies and judgments being made at the agency level are "pro-employee" and perhaps moving even further in favor of employees, as may be evidenced by agency's attempts to adopt policies such as the postitional risk doctrine. At the same time, it appears that the Iowa Supreme Court is recognizing this subtle and sometimes not so subtle shift in policy and that the Court is somewhat resistance to allowing any sweeping revisions that potentially could result in wild "swings" in policy based upon who the Commissioner is at a given time and based upon his/her political and social philosophies.
From a long-term point of view, the Court probably has the right idea. I have advocated in the past to avoid sweeping revisions to the worker's compensation laws to avoid "backlash" or "whipsaw" attempts to change or manipulate the law depending upon which political party controls the gubenatorial seat and/or the Iowa legislature. This system is designed to help injured workers but at the same time should not impose undue hardships or excessive burdens on employers in our state. Maintaining a fairly static policy approach to the system helps prevent scenarios in which is matters when you are injured and who the Commissioner is to determine whether your claim will be compensable. The Iowa Supreme Court appears to recognize that, from a long-term approach and viewpoint, signficant and sweeping changes in policy are not beneficial to the Iowa workers' compensation system.
Posted by William H. Grell on November 14, 2007 10:22 AM
|
Permalink
