IOWA COURT OF APPEALS DETERMINES THAT SKIN INJURIES INVOLVING MULTIPLE SCHEDULED MEMBERS DO NOT ENTITLE CLAIMANTS TO AN ASSESSMENT OF INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY IN LAGUERRE V. JBS USA HOLDINGS, INC.

Recently, the Iowa Court of Appeals rejected a claimant’s argument that skin injuries to multiple scheduled members should be measured on an industrial basis. Essentially, in 2017, changes were made to ICA 85.34(2), which details scheduled members.  The theory is that any anatomy not specifically listed as a scheduled member results in the same being considered a “body as a whole” injury, entitling the injured employee to higher indemnity. Claimant’s counsel argued that “skin” was not listed as a scheduled member and therefore does not fall under the elaborated scheduled members of ICA 85.34. Therefore, Claimant’s counsel argued that the “catch-all” provision essentially mandated that impairment to the skin for multiple members should be measured on an industrial basis.

Rejecting this argument, the Court of Appeals agreed with the Commissioner and the District Court's determination that this condition fell under ICA 85.34(2).

The Court of Appeals noted that it was faced with the legal question of whether §85.34(2) makes a skin injury – other than disfigurement to the face or head – an unscheduled injury as a matter of law/statutory interpretation. The Claimant argued that the 2017 Iowa statutory workers’ compensation changes mandated that permanency needed to be governed by the AMA Guides. Claimant also argued that the AMA Guides treated injuries to the skin as body as a whole injuries and therefore mandated that Iowa courts interpret the statutes accordingly.

First, the Iowa Court of Appeals rejected the notion that the Iowa legislature intended the AMA Guides to control statutory interpretation. Second, the appellate court noted that Claimant’s logic would “undermine the entire statutory structure” and that although the statute does not list the word “skin” under the scheduled member injuries section, neither does it mention “bone” or a “muscle,” all of which together compose the scheduled member itself. The appellate court noted that scheduled injuries essentially discuss “the loss of one or more body parts” or the “loss of use of the described body part”. Essentially, the statutes addressing scheduled member injuries contemplate injuries to all structures of that scheduled member injury, skin being only one of them. Therefore, the appellate court ultimately determined that the proper way to decide whether an injury is to the body as a whole or scheduled or unscheduled is to look at the member itself and determine whether the impairment/injury was limited to that member, not simply whether it was to a “structure” of the member that was detailed in the statute.

Given the same, the Court rejected the Claimant’s argument that an injury to the “skin” is an injury to the body as a whole. The practical impact of this is that the Court of Appeals wisely declined an opportunity to expand body as a whole indemnity benefits. For questions on this case or Iowa law, please contact Paul Barta or Adam Barrett.