SECOND INJURY FUND OF IOWA, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. PATSY NEER, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 8-597 / 07-0579
Filed August 19, 2009
SECOND INJURY FUND OF IOWA,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
PATSY NEER,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Arthur E. Gamble,
Judge.
Petitioner appeals the district court’s decision affirming the workers’
compensation commissioner’s ruling awarding respondent permanent total
disability benefits from the Second Injury Fund. AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Joanne Moeller, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellant.
Steven C. Jayne, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Potterfield, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2009).
2
ROBINSON, S.J.
I.
Background Facts & Proceedings
Patsy Neer was employed as an assembly-line worker by Siemens-Furnas
Controls.
She received several work-related injuries that required medical
treatment, including neck surgery in 1994, carpal tunnel surgery on her right arm
in 1995, and surgery on her right shoulder for a torn rotator cuff in 1996. Neer
entered into a settlement agreement with the employer under Iowa Code section
85.35 (2001), which was approved by the workers’ compensation commissioner
on September 10, 2001.1
Neer had additional carpal tunnel surgery on her right arm in 1999, and
carpal tunnel surgery on her left arm later that year. Neer’s employment ended
on January 31, 2003, when the employer closed its plant, and she became
employed at a part-time job at a library. Neer filed a claim against the Second
Injury Fund on March 19, 2004. She sought permanent total disability benefits
under the odd lot doctrine.
A deputy workers’ compensation commissioner found Neer was “a
credible witness in her own behalf.”
The deputy determined that in the
settlement agreement Neer was compensated for loss to a scheduled member,
and not compensated for an industrial loss of earning capacity. The deputy also
found:
Neer is over 60 years old with limited education, experience mainly
as a home health aide and factory production worker, and subject
to ongoing symptoms and such medical restrictions as
recommended by Dr. Koenig as to render her unable to consistently
The settlement agreement applied to “any conditions, injuries or diseases” sustained
between August 16, 1994, and July 10, 1995, arising out of Neer’s employment.
1
3
remain self-supporting on any regular basis. She is accordingly
entitled to permanent total disability benefits from the Fund.
The workers’ compensation commissioner affirmed and adopted the deputy’s
decision.
The Fund filed a petition for judicial review. The district court affirmed the
decision of the commissioner, finding substantial evidence to support the
commissioner’s determination that Neer suffered permanent total disability. The
Fund has appealed the decision of the district court.
II.
Standard of Review
Our review is governed by the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act. Iowa
Code ch. 17A (2005); Acuity Ins. v. Foreman, 684 N.W.2d 212, 216 (Iowa 2004).
We review the district court’s decision by applying the standards of section
17A.19 to the agency decision to determine if our conclusions are the same as
those reached by the district court. Univ. of Iowa Hosps. & Clinics v. Waters, 674
N.W.2d 92, 95 (Iowa 2004).
III.
First Injury
In order to be entitled to benefits under the Second Injury Fund, an
employee must show: (1) an injury to the hand, arm, foot, leg, or eye; (2) an
injury to another such member or organ through a work-related injury; and (3)
permanent disability from the injuries. Iowa Code § 85.64 (2003); Second Injury
Fund v. Shank, 516 N.W.2d 808, 812 (Iowa 1994). The Fund is responsible for
the difference between the compensation for which the current employer is liable
and the total amount of industrial disability suffered by the employee, reduced by
the compensable value of the first injury. Second Injury Fund v. Nelson, 544
4
N.W.2d 258, 270 (Iowa 1995). The Fund claims Neer is not entitled to benefits
from the Second Injury Fund because under the settlement agreement she was
compensated for disability to the body as a whole, and not for the loss of use of a
scheduled member, such as a hand, arm, foot, leg, or eye. See Second Injury
Fund v. George, 737 N.W.2d 141, 146 (Iowa 2007).
The district court looked at Neer’s injuries to determine if any were a
scheduled injury, instead of looking at how she was compensated for her injuries.
The court concluded Neer’s injury to her right arm, with resulting carpal tunnel
surgery, was a qualifying first loss for purposes of the Second Injury Fund. We
affirm the district court and the commissioner’s findings that Neer had an injury to
her right arm based on her carpal tunnel surgery in 1995, which qualified as the
first loss. See Haynes v. Second Injury Fund, 547 N.W.2d 11, 13 (Iowa Ct. App.
1996) (noting carpal tunnel syndrome is a compensable scheduled member
injury).
IV.
Loss of Use
The Fund argues that Neer is not entitled to benefits because there was
no loss of use causing or contributing to any industrial disability from the first
injury to her right arm or second injury to her left arm. In order to receive Second
Injury Fund benefits there must be some degree of permanent disability from
both the first and second loss or loss of use. Shank, 516 N.W.2d at 814.
We determine there is substantial evidence to show permanent loss of use
based on Neer’s first qualifying injury to her right arm. After Neer had surgery on
her right arm in 1995 she was given a six percent permanent impairment rating
5
for her arm. She was told to take sensible precautions and was accommodated
by her employer with different job positions and assistance from co-employees.
There is also substantial evidence to show permanent loss of use due to
the second qualifying injury to her left arm.
She was given a ten percent
permanent impairment rating for the upper left extremity. She was also placed
on restrictions, including “no repetitive firm grasping, gripping, pinching, or
torquing movements.”
V.
Permanent Total Disability
The Fund contends the combination of industrial disability from the first
and second injuries has not resulted in permanent total disability. The Fund
states that it is being made responsible not only for the first and second injuries
to Neer’s arms, but also her other injuries and medical conditions. This issue
was not presented to the deputy. We do not consider issues that were not first
presented to the deputy.
See Iowa Admin. Code r. 876-4.28(7); Boehme v.
Fareway Stores, Inc., 762 N.W.2d 142, 146 (Iowa 2009). We conclude the issue
has not been preserved for our review.
We affirm the decision of the district court and the workers’ compensation
commissioner.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
