John Cosgrove v. CRST Dedicated Services

December 9, 2020

In Cosgrove v. CRST Dedicated Services (File No. 5068073), a claimant sustained a scalp laceration after striking his head while docking his semi on 11/1/18.  As a result of the incident, Claimant was transported to Waterbury (Connecticut) Hospital.  While at Waterbury, Claimant underwent a battery of tests that were essentially non-remarkable with the exception of an electroencephalogram (EEG) which showed abnormal results due to mild generalized slowing; however, no seizure discharges were observed.  Claimant was discharged from Waterbury on 11/3/18 and upon discharge was instructed to avoid heavy lifting and commercial driving.  Claimant’s hospital discharge paperwork included an informational summary of transient ischemic attacks (TIA).  After reviewing his discharge paperwork, including the TIA informational sheet, Claimant believed he sustained a TIA during the 11/1/18 incident based on the fact that the TIA document was included in his hospital discharge papers.  However, Claimant admitted that a TIA diagnosis was never made at Waterbury or by any other medical provider.  Claimant was released from care and placed at MMI on 11/15/18.  Claimant was instructed to undergo a Department of Transportation “Return To Work” physical before returning to commercial driving to rule out any underlying non-work-related conditions.

After his release from care on 11/15/18, Claimant did not undergo the recommended DOT physical until 7/3/20 and instead indicated that he “wanted to go through the workers’ comp process before returning to work.”  Claimant passed the DOT physical and was found qualified to operate a commercial vehicle though 7/3/22.

At hearing, Claimant argued he was entitled to healing period benefits from the date of injury until 4/2/20 – the date in which Claimant began the process of seeking clearance to return to commercial driving.  In the decision, the deputy rejected Claimant’s argument and found that Claimant was entitled to healing period benefits from the date of injury until he was released and placed at MMI on 11/15/18.  This amounted to 1.43 weeks of temporary total disability benefits.

Claimant also sought reimbursement of his IME report pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.39, or alternatively, as a hearing cost pursuant to 876 IAC 4.36(6).  After finding that the defendant did not obtain an impairment rating, the deputy denied reimbursement under section 85.39.

In their post-hearing brief, defendant pointed out that Claimant did not so much as reference his IME report during hearing and therefore the request for reimbursement of the IME report under 876 IAC 4.36(6) should be denied.  Ultimately, the deputy declined to award any hearing costs to Claimant, including Claimant’s request for reimbursement of his IME report.

 

Decision can be found at: http://decisions.iowaworkforce.org/2020/October/Cosgrove,%20John-5068073D.pdf

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.

Den Hartog Industries v. Dungan

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