Madrid. v. Tyson Fresh Meats

January 8, 2026

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

 On 9/15/2025, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission issued a decision in Omar Madrid v. Tyson Fresh Meats. Deputy Andrew M. Phillips ruled in favor of the defendant, who was represented by Jason Wiltfang of Corridorlaw Group Iowa, P.C. In his decision, Deputy Phillips found that the reliability of Mr. Madrid’s testimony was undermined by the lack of objective evidence to support his claims about his symptoms.


 Mr. Madrid, a former Tyson employee, claimed that he injured his wrists while turning product—and that the resulting pain was so severe that it rendered him unable to work. However, as Deputy Phillips notes in his decision, “[w]hile the claimant subjectively believed that he could not work, there were several doctors who allowed him to return to work with no restrictions following his October 6, 2023, injury to his upper extremities.” Madrid, File No. 24002946.01 (Arb. 9/15/2025) at 22. Moreover, though Mr. Madrid “attempted to claim” that he voluntarily resigned his employment with Tyson “due to an inability to perform his job,” he “contradict his own testimony later in the hearing” by admitting that he left due to feeling disrespected by his supervisors, casting further doubt on his claims that he was unable to work. Id. at 23.


 The claimant’s medical expert, Dr. Bansal, was the only physician who “came remotely close to recommending that Mr. Madrid not work.” Id. However, Deputy Phillips found that “Dr. Bansal’s opinions are significantly flawed, especially considering that he does not appear that he reviewed the records of [the] treating neurosurgeon.” Id. Deputy Phillips also observed that “Dr. Bansal’s report does not specifically explain how Mr. Madrid developed symptoms despite his not working for several months following his resignation from Tyson” and “Dr. Bansal’s opinions on the stresses caused by Mr. Madrid’s work at Tyson were based entirely upon Mr. Madrid’s descriptions, and not on a review of a job description from Tyson or any other objective piece of evidence.” Id. at 24.


 As a result of these weaknesses in the claimant’s argument, Deputy Phillips found that “Mr. Madrid has not proved by a preponderance of the evidence that his alleged injuries from October 6, 2023, were a cause of temporary disability during a period of recovery.” Id. at 23. The outcome of this case serves to prove a basic principle of litigating a worker’s compensation case: claims that are substantiated by objective evidence are more convincing than claims that are rooted solely in a party’s subjective recollections. Without strong objective evidence, it is very possible for claims to fail.

 


New Paragraph

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.

Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan

October 7, 2025
Legal Update: Recent Iowa Supreme Court Ruling Alters Worker’s Compensation Landscape
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..