IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 14-0467

Filed July 9, 2015

WILLIAM JOSEPH REINSBACH,

Petitioner-Appellee,

vs.

GREAT LAKES COOPERATIVE and

NATIONWIDE AGRIBUSINESS

INSURANCE,

Respondents-Appellants.

________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano, 

Judge. 

An employer appeals the district court’s judicial review decision in this 

workers’ compensation case. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND 

REMANDED.

Jeffrey W. Lanz of Huber, Book, Cortese & Lanz, P.L.L.C., West Des 

Moines, for appellants.

Mark S. Soldat of Soldat, Parrish-Sams & Gustafson, P.L.C., West Des 

Moines, for appellee.

Considered by Vaitheswaran, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.
2

MULLINS, J.

William Reinsbach sustained an injury to his lower back arising out of and 

in the scope of his employment on April 15, 2005. Conservative care was given, 

but on May 1, 2006, while in physical therapy for this work injury, Reinsbach 

sustained an additional injury. Reinsbach’s workers’ compensation claim based 

on the 2005 injury was settled through an agreement for settlement, approved by 

the commissioner on February 14, 2008, setting his permanent partial disability 

rate at 15% body as a whole and noting Reinsbach would be entitled to future 

medical care for the injury. When Reinsbach’s pain continued, he filed a reviewreopening petition, and he eventually underwent three back surgeries with a 

fourth surgery recommended as of the date of the review-reopening hearing on 

January 18, 2012. 

The deputy workers’ compensation commissioner issued his decision in 

the review-reopening case on February 29, 2012, concluding Reinsbach proved 

his condition had deteriorated since the settlement and his ongoing treatment 

was causally related to his work injury. The decision also ordered Great Lakes 

Cooperative and Nationwide Agribusiness Insurance (employer) to pay for the 

medical bills Reinsbach had incurred to that point. The issue of the extent of 

Reinsbach’s entitlement to temporary and permanent disability benefits was 

bifurcated for a later determination in light of his ongoing treatment. The deputy’s

decision was appealed within the agency, and another deputy, sitting by 

designation of the commissioner, affirmed the initial ruling and specifically 
3

ordered the employer to pay the costs of the action, which included the expense 

of two independent medical examinations (IMEs) by Dr. Kuhnlein. 

The employer filed a petition for further review, challenging the substantial 

evidence to support the agency’s determination that Reinbach’s current condition 

was causally related to his work injury and challenging the agency’s assessment 

of the cost of the IMEs as hearing costs under Iowa Administrative Code rule 

876-4.33(6). In a thorough and well-reasoned decision, the district court 

concluded substantial evidence supported the agency’s determination that 

Reinbach’s current condition was causally related to his work injury. We affirm 

that portion of the decision pursuant to Iowa Court Rule 21.26(1)(d).

The district court also upheld the agency’s decision to assess against the 

employer the full amount of Dr. Kuhnlein’s IMEs and reports as hearing costs 

under rule 876-4.33(6). Subsequent to the district court’s decision, our supreme 

court determined that only costs associated with the preparation of the written 

report of a doctor can be assessed as costs of the hearing under Iowa 

Administrative Code rule 876-4.33(6). Des Moines Regional Transit Authority v. 

Young, ___, N.W.2d ___, ___, 2015 WL 3533268, at *8 (Iowa 2015). The 

underlying medical expenses associated with the examination of the worker 

cannot be included in the costs that are taxed to the employer under rule 876-

4.33(6). Id. at *7. Iowa Code section 85.39 (2011) is the sole method for a 

worker to be reimbursed for the cost of an examination by a doctor of the 

worker’s choosing. See id. There is no question that section 85.39 does not 

apply in this case. 
4

We reverse that portion of the district court’s judicial review decision that 

affirmed the agency’s assessment of the IMEs cost to the employer. In reviewing 

the agency record on appeal, we are unable to discern what portion of the total 

$5470 Dr. Kuhnlein charged for his two IMEs and reports is related solely to the 

preparation of the written report by the doctor. Therefore, in light of the supreme 

court’s decision in Young, 2015 WL 3533268, at *8, this case must be remanded 

to the district court for an order remanding the matter to the agency so that 

determination can be made. In all other aspects, the district court’s judicial 

review decision is affirmed. 

Costs on appeal are assessed one-half to each party.

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.