Corridorlaw Group IOWA

On 2/10/2026, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission issued a decision in Areli Brus v. Tyson Fresh Meats . Deputy Jennifer S. Gerrish-Lampe ruled in favor of the defendant, who was represented by Charles Showalter of Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C. In her decision, Deputy Gerrish-Lampe found that the strength of Claimant’s case was undermined by her independent medical exam, which incorrectly applied Table 6-9 of the AMA Guides, 5th Edition while assigning Claimant an impairment rating. Ms. Brus, a Tyson employee, alleged that injuries sustained during a slip-and-fall at work resulted in an abdominal hernia. She underwent surgery with a mesh implant to repair the hernia, but still complained of pain afterwards and ultimately brought an action against Tyson. As part of her case, she underwent an IME with Dr. Sunil Bansal. Dr. Bansal assigned Ms. Brus a whole-body impairment rating of 9% based on the fact that she was still experiencing pain at her surgery site that “went beyond ‘occasional mild’.” Areli Brus v. Tyson Fresh Meats , File No. 22000220.02 (Arb. 2/10/2026) at 7. Dr. Bansal’s assessment contradicted the conclusion reached by Defendant’s expert, Dr. Douglas Martin. Dr. Martin, a co-chair of the AMA Guides Editorial Panel, stated in his report that an impairment rating can only be assigned for a hernia if there is a “palpable defect in the supporting structures of the abdominal wall.” Id . at 8. Given that Ms. Brus underwent a successful mesh implant surgery, she suffered from no such defect in her abdominal wall—and, therefore, had no impairment attributable to her hernia. The outcome in this case is another reminder of the importance of ensuring that IME providers utilize the Guides carefully and correctly. By her own admission, Deputy Gerrish-Lampe found portions of Dr. Bansal’s report persuasive. Id . Iowa law, however, requires deputies to assign impairment ratings in accordance with the Guides—and Dr. Martin was the only provider who did that correctly.

Functional capacity evaluations (“FCE”) can be useful tools during workers’ compensation cases. However, it is important that all parties involved be acutely aware of their uses and limitations. An FCE is not equivalent to an independent medical examination (“IME”) or a report from a treating physician; it cannot provide an impairment rating. It can, however, resolve disputes between parties regarding a claimant’s employment prospects. When used wisely, a well-drafted FCE can shed an objective light on a claimant’s capacities and greatly assist deputies in weighing evidence. An FCE is a report drafted by a qualified evaluator—who is, more often than not, a physical therapist—regarding a claimant’s physical abilities in a workplace setting. While preparing the report, the evaluator typically puts the claimant through a battery of tests that assess their ability to perform job-specific movements such as lifting, carrying, standing, sitting, reaching, and bending. After the tests have been conducted, the evaluator compares the results against standardized work classifications from the Dictionary of Occupational Titles: sedentary, light, medium, heavy, and very heavy work. Based upon the results, the evaluator will issue an opinion about the level of work that the claimant is capable of performing. An FCE is most appropriate when a claimant has reached maximum medical improvement, but the parties disagree about the claimant’s future employment prospects or ability to perform certain jobs. In this situation, an FCE can offer an objective assessment of the claimant’s physical abilities. However, it is important to note that FCEs have a key limitation. An FCE alone, without any evidence from a physician, cannot establish the existence of a disability. The Agency “gives little weight to functional capacity evaluations by physical therapists that are not adopted by a licensed physician and conflict with activity restrictions imposed by licensed physicians.” Allen v. Annett Holdings, File No. 5024900 (App. July 28, 2011) at 9. As Deputy Walshire notes in his decision in Allen , “Such therapists simply lack the medical qualifications to make such medical assessments and causally relate their findings to a work injury.” Id. While FCEs can be useful, parties to a case must make sure they are making appropriate use of them. If an FCE contradicts the medical evidence, it likely will not be given much weight by the fact finder; and if it is the only proof offered to substantiate a claimant’s alleged disability, their claim will likely not succeed.