Iowa Court Affirms PPD Award Where Effects of Knee Injury Extended Beyond the Leg

Stressing that a claimant’s “injury” and “impairment” are not necessarily equivalents, an Iowa appellate court affirmed a determination that an injured worker was entitled to permanent partial disability benefits; he was not limited merely to a scheduled award for a torn quadriceps tendon [Masterbrand Cabinets v. Simons, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 814 (Sept. 22, 2021)]. Quoting Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (“Larson”), the court reiterated the general rule that where the effects of the loss of the member extend to other parts of the body and interfere with their efficiency, the scheduled allowance for the lost member is not exclusive.

Background

Simons sustained an admitted work-related injury in November 2015, when he suffered a ruptured right quadriceps tendon. He underwent surgery and was discharged from the surgeon’s care on August 22, 2016. The surgeon found Simons had reached MMI and Simons was awarded PPD benefits following an arbitration hearing. On intra-agency appeal, the award was affirmed by the workers’ compensation commissioner. The district court rejected the carrier’s claims on judicial review, upholding the commissioner’s rulings. The carrier appealed.

Scheduled vs. Unscheduled Injuries

The carrier contended in relevant part that the tear of the right quadriceps tendon involved only Simons’s knee and thigh, entitling him to benefits for a scheduled loss, not an unscheduled disability. The appellate court acknowledged that the state’s workers’ compensation laws set the amount of compensation for the loss of certain specified body members, such as eyes, ears, fingers, toes, hands, arms, feet, and legs [see Iowa Code § 85.34(2)(u)]. Quoting Larson, the court said:

The great majority of modern decisions agree that, if the effects of the loss of the member extend to other parts of the body and interfere with their efficiency, the scheduled allowance for the lost member is not exclusive [Larson, § 87.02].

Injury and Impairment Are Not Equivalent

The appellate court acknowledged that while Simons’s surgeon indicated the injury was isolated in the knee, the deputy found the other physicians’ opinions were more convincing than those of the surgeon. Three doctors identified impairment of Simons’s right hip—loss of flexion, range of motion, and strength—resulting from his torn quadriceps tendon. Another indicated Simons exhibited loss of range of motion in his hip. The carrier’s own expert determined that weakness in Simons’s right hip flexor was related to his compensable injury. The court stressed that injury and impairment are not necessarily equivalents. Substantial evidence supported the commissioner’s findings and the court, therefore, affirmed the district court’s ruling upholding the commissioner’s ruling.