Opinion ID: 2108801
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: General Principles Regarding Review-Reopening Proceedings.

Text: Under Iowa Code section 86.14(2), the workers' compensation commissioner has authority to reopen an award or settlement of workers' compensation benefits to inquire `whether or not the condition of the employee warrants an end to, diminishment of, or increase of compensation so awarded or agreed upon.' Gallardo v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 482 N.W.2d 393, 395 (Iowa 1992) (quoting Iowa Code § 86.14(2)). When the employee files a review-reopening proceeding to increase benefits, the employee must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she has suffered an impairment or lessening of earning capacity proximately caused by the original injury. Simonson v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 588 N.W.2d 430, 434 (Iowa 1999). Logic dictates that the circumstances giving rise to a decrease in earning capacity must not have been within the contemplation of the decision maker at the time of the original award. That is so because if these circumstances were known or anticipated at the time of the initial award, they would logically be reflected in the original determination of industrial disability. Thus, in a case such as this where the employee claims his earning capacity has decreased as the result of changes in his physical condition occurring after the initial award of benefits, the commissioner must determine (1) whether there has been a change in the worker's condition as a result of the original injury, and (2) whether this change was contemplated by the parties at the time of any settlement or stipulation with respect to industrial disability or whether it was beyond what the commissioner contemplated at the time of the original assessment of industrial disability. If such an unanticipated change has occurred, the commissioner must then determine the extent to which this deterioration has adversely affected the employee's earning capacity. We now discuss these matters in the context of the case before us.