Legal Update: Temporary Work Offers and Benefits Eligibility in Iowa

April 9, 2026

In Iowa workers' compensation, the details of a job offer can determine benefit eligibility.



By: Thania Rios

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.

New Paragraph

Alternate Care in Iowa Workers’ Compensation: What It Takes to Succeed

March 26, 2026
Learn when employees can seek alternate care in Iowa workers’ compensation cases and what must be proven under Iowa Code section 85.27.

Correct Use of the AMA Guides Determines Outcome in Brus v. Tyson Fresh Meats

March 12, 2026
Learn how correct application of the AMA Guides impacted a recent Iowa workers’ compensation decision and why impairment ratings must follow the proper standards.

FCEs in Iowa Workers’ Compensation: What They Can — and Cannot — Prove

February 26, 2026
Understand what functional capacity evaluations can and cannot prove in Iowa workers’ compensation cases and how they are weighed as evidence.

More Claims, Broader Coverage: How Two Iowa Cases Reshaped the Second Injury Fund

February 12, 2026
Two Iowa Supreme Court decisions expanded Second Injury Fund eligibility. Learn what changed and how it impacts workers’ compensation claims.

Understanding Workers’ Compensation in Iowa

February 2, 2026
What Workers’ Compensation Is Designed to Do Workers’ compensation is a system created to provide benefits to employees who are injured while performing their job duties. In Iowa, this system is intended to offer medical care and wage replacement without requiring injured workers to prove fault. At the same time, workers’ compensation limits an employer’s exposure to lawsuits by providing an exclusive remedy in most workplace injury situations. This balance is a key feature of the system. Who Is Covered Under Iowa Workers’ Compensation Law Most employees in Iowa are covered by workers’ compensation, regardless of whether the injury occurred suddenly or developed over time. Coverage generally applies when an injury arises out of and in the course of employment. There are limited exceptions depending on the nature of the work and employment relationship. Understanding whether an injury qualifies often depends on specific facts and circumstances. Types of Benefits Available Workers’ compensation benefits in Iowa may include medical treatment related to the injury and partial wage replacement if the injury prevents an employee from working. In some cases, benefits may also address permanent impairment or long-term disability. The type and duration of benefits depend on the nature of the injury and how it affects an employee’s ability to work. Why Understanding the System Matters Many injured workers are unfamiliar with workers’ compensation until an injury occurs. Misunderstanding how the system works can lead to missed deadlines or confusion about available benefits. Learning the basics helps injured workers better navigate the process and set realistic expectations. Final Thoughts Workers’ compensation in Iowa is designed to provide support after a workplace injury, but the process can be complex. Understanding how the system works is an important first step for anyone dealing with a work-related injury.  This content is for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.

Shoulder Injuries Under Iowa Law

January 29, 2026
Learn how shoulder injuries are classified under Iowa workers’ compensation law and what that means for benefits, impairment, and claim outcomes.

Madrid. v. Tyson Fresh Meats

January 8, 2026
Without strong objective evidence, it is very possible for claims to fail.

Marcum v. Westside Auto Pros

December 4, 2025
When testimony conflicts with the evidence, credibility becomes the deciding factor.

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.
Show More