Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan

October 7, 2025

Recent Iowa Supreme Court Ruling Alters Workers' Compensation Landscape


By: Thania Rios


On Friday, 10/3/2025, The Iowa Supreme Court issued an opinion in Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan that transforms how cases involving claimants who voluntarily leave their positions after returning to work are litigated. The case, which involved a claimant who quit his job after returning to work at a higher wage than he previously earned, required the Court to determine the correct interpretation of Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(v). Specifically, the Court was tasked with deciding whether claimants who quit after returning to work at wages equal to or higher than those they earned at the time of the accident should be compensated based on their functional impairment or their industrial disability ratings. 


The Court used a plain-text reading to determine the meaning of the provision, deliberately eschewing the policy-driven interpretations that were utilized by the lower courts. Opining that the text of 85.34(2)(v) “isn’t ambiguous,” the Court found that the provision states that claimants who voluntarily leave their positions after returning to work for compensation that is equal to or greater than what they earned at the time of the accident are to be compensated based on functional impairment—not industrial disability. The Court also acknowledged that 85.34(2)(v) enables claimants who are terminated by their employers to pursue a second litigation process in which they can be compensated based on industrial disability. However, they affirmed that this right belongs solely to employees who are terminated, and not employees who voluntarily leave their positions. 


It is worth noting that the facts of this case did not require the Court to address work that was merely offered (but not accepted) to a claimant at the same or greater wages, given that the claimant in this case returned to work after his injury. However, given the Court’s plain-text reading of the statutory language of section 85.34(2)(v), employees who are offered, but do not actually return to, work at the same or greater earnings may also be limited to the functional impairment rating instead of the industrial disability analysis. This issue will likely be addressed by the appeals courts in the future. 


This ruling will have a significant impact on how both claimants and defendants will litigate workers’ compensation matters moving forward. Claimants will have to be aware of the impact that voluntarily quitting a position may have upon their case, while defendants must be mindful of the fact that any employees who quit after returning to work at equal or greater wages can be compensated based on the more favorable functional impairment rating. 


Read the Ruling Here: Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan


New Paragraph

Irvin v. Tyson Fresh Meats

November 20, 2025
On August 27, 2025, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission issued a decision in Irvin v. Tyson Fresh Meats. Deputy Amanda R. Rutherford ruled in favor of the defendant, who was represented by Jason Wiltfang of Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C. In her decision, Deputy Rutherford found that the evidence in the record was insufficient to establish that the claimant’s duties resulted in a cumulative injury. While explaining the rationale behind her decision, the Deputy paid particular attention to the vague job description that Irvin provided to her medical expert. In the letter sent to her expert requesting an opinion and providing background information, Irvin included an excerpt from her Answers to Defendant’s Interrogatories that stated that, at work, “she made 500 to 1,000 boxes daily, as well as stacked boxes, moved boxes, and put them on the line, down chutes or on top units” and that “the job required repetitive lifting, bending, and twisting.” Irvin , File No. 23009752.01 (Arb. 1/31/2025) at 15. However, Irvin did not “provide pertinent details such as weighs, sizes, amount of force needed, and/or explain body mechanics that could have caused her alleged injuries.” Id . Deputy Rutherford stated that, because of this omission, the claimant’s expert was “not given an accurate, detailed and/or complete job description before authorizing his report.” Id . The fact that the claimant’s expert based his examination on an incomplete job description ultimately proved fatal to Irvin’s case. As the Deputy noted in her decision, “[i]n a cumulative injury claim, a medically supported diagnosis, detailed and complete job description, and clearly articulated mechanism of injury are essential evidence.” Id. Without that evidence, it is very difficult for claimants to meet their burdens of proof. The decision in Irvin goes to show that, when it comes to cumulative injury cases, experts should be provided with complete job descriptions—otherwise, the flawed foundation of the expert’s opinion can render it unpersuasive.

Caballero v. Tyson Fresh Meats

October 24, 2025
On May 16, 2025, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission issued a decision in Caballero v. Tyson Fresh Meats , File No 23005158.01 . Deputy Erin Q. Pals ruled in favor of the defendant, who was represented by Jason Wiltfang of Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C. In her decision, Deputy Pals found that the claimant failed to prove that he sustained an injury which arose out of and in the course of his employment. This finding was shaped in large part by the disparity between the parties’ IMEs. The claimant’s expert’s opinions made broad “blanket statements” regarding causation that cited neither the medical record nor the AMA Guides , the Deputy found. The defense’s expert, on the other hand, related all of his opinions to the medical record and cited the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Disease and Injury Causation to further support his findings. The approach employed by the claimant’s expert, Farid Manshadi, MD, failed to persuade the Deputy that the claimant’s employment caused his injury. Deputy Pals noted the paucity of claimant’s argument on several occasions, observing that claimant’s expert provided no rationale for his opinions despite being the only physician to relate the claimant’s injuries to his activities at Tyson. When describing the importance of expert evidence to establishing causation, Deputy Pals noted that “[t]he weight to be given to an expert opinion is determined by the finder of fact and may be affected by the accuracy of the facts the expert relied upon as well as other surrounding circumstances.” Applying that standard to the facts of this case, Deputy Pals found “the blanket, cursory causation opinions of Dr. Manshadi” to be less persuasive than those of the defendant’s experts. This is a lesson that both claimants and defendants would do well to remember. The decision in Caballero is proof that an expert opinion, including the methodology applied and reasoning provided by the expert, has the potential to make or break a case.
A person grinding metal, sparks flying, in a workshop setting.

John Cosgrove v. CRST Dedicated Services

By Dillon Carpenter • December 9, 2020
In Cosgrove v. CRST Dedicated Services (File No. 506807 [...] The post John Cosgrove v. CRST Dedicated Services appeared first on Scheldrup Wiltfang Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C..
Logo: Grid of blue, purple, and white squares surrounding an orange stylized

Naima Cerwick v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc.

By webapps • February 25, 2019
Scheldrup Wiltfang attorney Jason Wiltfang presented o [...] The post Naima Cerwick v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc. appeared first on Scheldrup Wiltfang Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C..
Three engineers wearing hard hats inspecting equipment in a mechanical room.

James Hessenius vs. Great Plains Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc., and United First & Casualty Co.

By webapps • February 25, 2019
File No. 5044228 (App. Dec. 02/14/19) This case involv [...] The post James Hessenius vs. Great Plains Orthotics & Prosthetics, Inc., and United First & Casualty Co. appeared first on Scheldrup Wiltfang Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C..