Kelly Brewer-Strong v. HNI Corporation

Summary

The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed the denial of healing period benefits to Kelly Brewer-Strong following unauthorized bilateral carpal tunnel surgeries. The court held that HNI Corporation regained and retained its right to control medical care after amending its answer to admit liability, despite initially denying the work-related injury. Because Brewer-Strong did not establish that the unauthorized treatment produced a more favorable outcome, HNI could assert an authorization defense.

Holdings

1. An employer does not permanently forfeit its rights under Iowa Code section 85.27 by initially denying liability. When the employer later admits compensability and attempts to furnish reasonable medical care, it acquires and retains the right to control the employee's medical care and may assert an authorization defense unless it later denies the injury is work-related, withdraws authorization, or the commissioner orders alternate care.
2. The law-of-the-case doctrine did not bar HNI from asserting an authorization defense because the initial alternate-care dismissal was procedural, did not decide the merits of any specific medical care, and the material facts changed when HNI later admitted liability and offered authorized care.
3. A claimant seeking payment for unauthorized medical care must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the care was reasonable and beneficial and provided a more favorable medical outcome than would likely have been achieved through the employer-authorized care.
4. The Bell Bros. more-favorable-medical-outcome test applies to healing period benefits resulting from unauthorized medical care. A claimant who knowingly obtains unauthorized care cannot recover healing period benefits arising from that care unless the claimant satisfies the Bell Bros. burden of proof.

Questions Presented

1. Whether an employer that initially denies liability for a work-related injury may later admit liability and regain the statutory right to control the employee's medical care.
2. Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred HNI from asserting an authorization defense after the deputy commissioner dismissed Brewer-Strong's initial alternate-medical-care petition on procedural grounds.
3. Whether the Bell Bros. requirement that unauthorized medical care provide a more favorable medical outcome should be abandoned or modified.
4. Whether the Bell Bros. more-favorable-medical-outcome test applies to a claimant's request for healing period benefits arising from unauthorized medical care.

Disposition

affirmed