The debate about shoulders and industrial disability has come to an end for now with the Iowa Supreme Court’s most recent decision, Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Anderson. The Court held that a work injury causing injuries to both the shoulder and upper extremity/arm does not convert the injury to a body as a whole case.

As discussed in prior articles, following the 2017 law amendments, there was significant litigation surrounding whether shoulder injuries were limited to the schedule versus treated as unscheduled injuries (“body as a whole” injury). The amendment to add Iowa Code section 85.34(2)(n) made shoulder injuries part of the schedule, compensating them based on the functional impairment rating out of 400 weeks.  Before the amendment, shoulder injuries were treated as unscheduled injuries and compensated using an industrial disability analysis; they were also eligible for permanent total disability/odd lot benefits.

To get shoulder injuries compensated industrially like before the 2017 amendments, injured workers were arguing that if they had a combined shoulder and upper extremity/arm injury, then it converted to an unscheduled injury, and therefore could be compensated industrially under the catch-all section 85.34(2)(v).  This argument succeeded at the agency level.

The Iowa Supreme Court disagreed.  In Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Anderson, Justice May gave the opinion that was joined by all justices.  Justice May utilized statutory interpretation principles to interpret the catch-all section 85.34(2)(v). 

An injury can be unscheduled only if it fits in paragraph (v).  And by its plain terms, paragraph (v) can only apply to injuries “other than those…described or referred to in paragraphs ‘a’ through ‘u.’”  But Anderson’s injuries are not “other than those…described or referred to in paragraphs ‘a’ through ‘u.’”  Anderson’s injuries are to his shoulder and arm.  Both are “described or referred to” in the schedule composed of “paragraphs ‘a’ through ‘u.’” 

In other words, because Anderson’s injuries to his shoulder and arm are body parts contained in the schedule under sections 85.34(2)(m) and (n), they should be compensated under those sections.  The unscheduled injury section 85.34(2)(v) does not say that it is applicable when there is more than one scheduled member body part injured.  Rather, unscheduled injuries are those not contained in the schedule, like back and neck injuries, which are the only injuries compensated under section 85.34(2)(v). 

The Court felt it was “highlighting [the] outer boundaries” of section 85.34(v), not stripping it of any meaning.  It will be interesting to see how these outer boundaries from the Court’s decision will be tested.  In practice, if a work injury produces an injury to three or more scheduled body parts, then the injury is converted to a body as a whole injury.  However, the Court’s decision leaves the door open for employers and insurance companies to argue that a combination of three (or more) scheduled member injuries still limits the injured worker to the schedule and section 85.24(2)(v) is not applicable.

Under this new decision, when dealing with work injuries to both the shoulder and upper extremity/arm, employers and insurance companies will pay based on the functional ratings for each body part. 

For example, if an injured worker sustains an injury to her shoulder and elbow as a result of the same incident, then an impairment rating should be obtained for each body part and paid out according to the corresponding number of weeks available under sections 85.34(2)(m) and (n) (250 weeks for an arm/upper extremity injury and 400 weeks for a shoulder injury).