Brian Dale Klein v. Whirlpool Corporation

• Court: Supreme Court of Iowa
• Decided: June 26, 2026
• Docket: 25-0458
• Status: Published

Opinion

In the Iowa Supreme Court

No. 25–0458

Submitted June 3, 2026—Filed June 26, 2026

Brian Dale Klein,

Appellant,

vs.

Whirlpool Corporation,

Appellee.

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Iowa County, Lars G. Anderson,

judge.

An employee seeks further review of a court of appeals decision that

affirmed a district court order dismissing his petition for judicial review of a

workers’ compensation decision. Decision of Court of Appeals Vacated;

District Court Judgment Reversed and Case Remanded with Instructions.

Per curiam.

Thomas M. Wertz and Mindi M. Vervaecke of Wertz Law Firm, Cedar

Rapids, for appellant.

Kent M. Smith of Smith Mills Law P.C., West Des Moines, for appellee. 2

This case presents issues we recently decided in Koeller v. Cardinal

Logistics Management Corp., ___ N.W.3d ___, 2026 WL 1354304

(Iowa May 15, 2026). There, we considered how the American Medical

Association, Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (Linda

Cocciarella & Gunnar B. J. Andersson eds., 5th ed. 2001) [hereinafter AMA

Guides] apply to a scheduled shoulder injury involving a distal clavicle excision.

Koeller, ___ N.W.3d at ___, 2026 WL 1354304, at *1. We held two things that are

relevant here. First, because the AMA Guides have been incorporated into Iowa

workers’ compensation law, their interpretation is properly within the domain of

the agency and, ultimately, the courts. Id. at ___, 2026 WL 1354304, at *5.

Second, the commissioner had interpreted the AMA Guides incorrectly: the 10%

impairment value for a distal clavicle excision under Table 16-27 is not subject

to the 25% multiplier in Table 16-18. Id. at ___, 2026 WL 1354304, at *7.

This case raises the same issues and, therefore, the result is the same.

Brian Klein injured his right shoulder while working for Whirlpool

Corporation. He later underwent shoulder surgery that included a distal clavicle

excision. The parties agreed that Klein sustained some permanent disability, but

they disputed the extent of it.

Three physicians offered impairment ratings. Dr. Matthew Bollier assigned

a 4% upper extremity impairment based on loss of range of motion. Dr. Robert

Broghammer assigned a 2% upper extremity impairment, also based on loss of

range of motion. Dr. Mark Taylor assigned a 6% impairment for loss of range of

motion and an additional 10% impairment for the distal clavicle excision under

Table 16-27 of the AMA Guides. See AMA Guides § 16.7b tbl.16-27, at 506. Using 3

the combined values chart, Dr. Taylor concluded that Klein had sustained a 15%

impairment of the right upper extremity.

The deputy commissioner found Dr. Taylor’s opinion most persuasive. Yet

the deputy did not adopt Dr. Taylor’s 15% rating. Instead, relying on the

commissioner’s prior decision in Jay v. Archer Skid Loader Service, LLC, Iowa

Workers’ Comp. Comm’n No. 19003586.01, 2022 WL 17078713 (Aug. 23, 2022),

the deputy concluded that the 10% value for the distal clavicle excision had to

be multiplied by 25% as instructed by Table 16-18. See AMA Guides § 16.7

tbl.16-18, at 499. That reduced the distal clavicle excision impairment from 10%

to 2.5%. Combining that figure with the 6% range of motion impairment yielded

a 9% impairment rating.

On intra-agency review, the commissioner affirmed. The district court

denied Klein’s petition for judicial review. The court of appeals affirmed the

district court. Klein sought further review, which we granted.

In this case, the commissioner applied the same interpretation of the AMA

Guides that we rejected in Koeller. There, we explained that Table 16-27 provides

the value of impairment of the upper extremity for a distal clavicle excision.

Koeller, ___ N.W.3d at ___, 2026 WL 1354304, at *7. Because Table 16-27

already gives an upper extremity impairment value, the additional conversion

under Table 16-18 is not made. Id. “The specifics in section 16.7b of the AMA

Guides prevail over the general statement in section 16.7.” Id.

That holding controls this case. The deputy commissioner accepted

Dr. Taylor’s opinion that Klein sustained a 10% impairment for the distal clavicle

excision under Table 16-27. The deputy then applied the 25% Table 16-18

multiplier and reduced that portion of the rating to 2.5%. Under Koeller, that

was error. 4

For these reasons, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals, reverse

the judgment of the district court, and remand to the district court with

instructions to remand the case to the workers’ compensation commissioner for

further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Decision of Court of Appeals Vacated; District Court Judgment

Reversed and Case Remanded with Instructions.

This opinion shall not be published.