Legal Update: Wooff Clarifies the Impact of Work Offers on Industrial Disability

On 10/21/2026, the Iowa Court of Appeals issued a decision in Wooff v. Nine Park Lane that clarifies how work offers should be interpreted in the wake of Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan—and when refusal of a work offer can render a claimant ineligible for a permanency award under the industrial disability analysis.

In Wooff, the claimant was a longtime employee of the defendant-employer who reported a cumulative injury after twenty-six years of employment. While seeking treatment for his shoulder pain, the claimant was given permanent work restrictions that prohibited him from engaging in repetitive reaching above his head. Given that the claimant’s prior position consisted of hanging and finishing drywall, these restrictions left him unable to return to his prior role.

Subsequently, the defendant-employer offered the claimant a superintendent position that complied with his work restrictions. The job would have required “manning the [construction] jobs and then checking on the jobs, making sure you’re staying up-to-date and on schedule, plus answering questions from the contractors as well as the employees.” Wooff, File No. 25-1433 (10/21/2026) at 9. It also would have offered a higher salary than what claimant was previously earning. Wooff refused to accept the position, however, on the grounds that he did not feel qualified to meet the physical and mental demands of the job.

The defendant-employer argued that the offer of higher-paying work, under the precedent set by Den Hartog Industries, limited claimant’s permanency benefits recovery to the functional impairment rating that resulted from his injury. The claimant, however, argued that “an employer’s offer of work must be consistent with the employee’s training, experience, and qualifications” before refusing that offer can render a claimant ineligible for an industrial disability analysis. Id. at 8.

Ultimately, the Court sided with the defendant-employer. It held that, when an employee with a body-as-a-whole injury is offered work at the same or greater earnings, permanency benefits will be limited to the functional impairment rating even if the employee contends the position is not suitable. The Court acknowledged that Wooff’s argument that a suitability requirement should be read into section 85.34(2)(v) is not completely without precedent in Iowa law: after all, Iowa Code section 85.33(3) requires that the work being offered to an employee receiving temporary benefits or healing period benefits must be suitable before rejection of the offer can result in forfeiture of those benefits. However, as the Court points out, section 85.34(2)(v) includes no suitability language. Moreover, the claimant “point[ed] to no authority, and we are aware of none, extending such suitability analysis to section 85.34(2)(v)’s distinct text.” Id. at 9.

The practical takeaway is that an offer of work at the same or greater earnings remains a powerful tool for employers to limit permanency benefits on body-as-a-whole claims to the functional impairment rating, rather than the (typically higher) industrial disability analysis. If a claimant is considering a refusal of such an offer, they should be advised that they may render themselves ineligible for industrial disability benefits by doing so.

LINKS:

October 21, 2026: Appeal Decision