Kevin Koeller v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation and Ace American Insurance Company

── Kevin Koeller v. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation and Ace American Insurance Company ── Court: Supreme Court of Iowa Date: May 15, 2026 Category: General In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 25–0172 Submitted April 15, 2026—Filed May 15, 2026 Kevin Koeller, Appellant, vs. Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation and Ace American Insurance Company, Appellees. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. Rosenberg, 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 Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part; District Court Judgment Affirmed in Part, Reversed in Part, and Case Remanded. Mansfield, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined. Joseph S. Powell of Thomas J. Reilly Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Patrick J. Mack of Gilson Daub, LLP, Bennington, Nebraska, for appellees.  2 Mansfield, Justice. I. Introduction. “[T]he inquiry, then, is, what is ‘law?’ ” State v. Hockett, 30 N.W. 742, 744 (Iowa 1886). In 2017, the general assembly voted to make “the guides to the evaluation of permanent impairment, published by the American medical association,” part of our law of workers’ compensation. See 2017 Iowa Acts ch. 23, § 9 (codified at Iowa Code § 85.34(2)(x) (2018)). It directed that, in cases of permanent partial disability involving loss or loss of use of a scheduled member, “the extent of loss or percentage of permanent impairment shall be determined solely by utilizing [the AMA Guides].” Id. (codified at Iowa Code § 85.34(2)(x) (2018)). In this case of a worker who suffered a left shoulder injury while on the job, we now are called upon to interpret that law. Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear what that law means. A divided panel of the court of appeals came to two different conclusions. On our review, we agree with the court of appeals dissent. Accordingly, we vacate the decision of the court of appeals on this point, we affirm in part and reverse in part the order of the district court, and we remand to the district court so that this case can be remanded to the workers’ compensation commission for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion. II. Facts and Procedural History. A. Kevin Koeller’s Workplace Injury. Kevin Koeller worked for Cardinal Logistics Management Corporation as a semitruck driver. Cardinal transports goods for a department store chain. Koeller’s job was to deliver goods to department stores located in the Midwest. In addition to driving the truck, Koeller was responsible for unloading it at each stop.  3 On October 5, 2022, Koeller injured his left shoulder in the course of unloading his truck. The truck has a roll-up door. Unbeknownst to Koeller, a pallet had fallen over inside, jamming the door shut. When Koeller grabbed the handle of the door with his left hand and tried to yank it upward, the door stuck. Koeller immediately felt a popping sensation in his left shoulder. Eventually, the door had to be opened with a floor jack. B. Care Following the Injury. Koeller sought medical care over the weekend because his shoulder had turned black and blue. In the ensuing days, Koeller continued to experience numbness, tingling, and pain in his left hand and arm. MRIs revealed partial tearing of tendons as well as some preexisting acromioclavicular (AC) joint degenerative disease. Matthew Bollier, M.D., an orthopedic surgeon at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics, initially recommended conservative trea