Legal Update: Temporary Work Offers and Benefits Eligibility in Iowa

On March 23, 2026, Interim Commissioner Grell issued his decision in Taylor v. Precision Drywall—a decision that hinges, in part, on the requirements that Iowa Code section 85.33(3)(b) imposes on employers extending offers of work to temporarily disabled employees. The outcome of Taylor is a useful reminder of why it is so important for employers to ensure that they fully comply with 85.33(3)(b). An employer may make a good-faith effort to offer a temporary work assignment to a disabled employee; however, if that offer does not contain everything that 85.33(3)(b) requires, an employee may still be entitled to temporary benefits despite the fact that she was offered and refused a suitable work assignment.

Whether or not an injured employee is eligible for TPD, TTD, or healing period benefits can hinge on whether a sufficient offer of temporary work was issued. According to Iowa Code section 85.33(3)(a),

[i]f an employee is temporarily, partially disabled and the employer for whom the employee was working at the time of the injury offers to the employee suitable work consistent with the employee’s disability the employee shall accept the suitable work, and be compensated with temporary partial benefits. If the employer offers the employee suitable work and the employee refuses to accept the suitable work offered by the employer, the employee shall not be compensated with temporary partial, temporary total, or healing period benefits during the time of refusal.

Since a temporary offer of suitable work has the potential to reduce an employer’s liability in the event of a refusal, it is in the best interests of many defendant-employers to extend such offers to their partially disabled employees. However, according to the plain text of 85.33(3)(b), offers of temporary work need to be formatted in a highly particular way. To meet the standard of a ‘suitable offer’ for purposes of Iowa Code Section 85.33(3)(a), offers of temporary work must:

• Be in writing,
• Contained a job description detailed enough to clearly convey that the work being offered is suitable, given the employee’s temporary disability,
• Include details of lodging, meals, and transportation, if applicable,
• Explicitly state that, if the employee refuses the offer of temporary work, the employee must communicate both the refusal and the reason for the refusal to the employer in writing, and
• Explicitly state, during the period of a refusal of temporary work, the employee will not be compensated with TPD, TTD, or healing period benefits, unless the work refused is not suitable.

In Taylor v. Precision Drywall, the defendant argued that the claimant was ineligible for healing period benefits given the fact that he refused a written offer of suitable work. Commissioner Grell, however, noted that the offer did not provide enough details about the job to make it clear whether it was suitable, did not communicate to the employee that he should communicate both his refusal and the reason for his refusal in writing, and did not communicate to the employee that he would not be compensated during the period of refusal. As such, he found that the defendants failed to comply with 85.33(3) and that the claimant was entitled to healing period benefits.

In light of Taylor v. Precision Drywall, employers should be very cautious about ensuring that their offers of temporary work align with the requirements of 85.33(3). Failing to do so could leave them liable for further benefit payments, even if the employee refuses the job.