Jerry Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc., d/b/a Ridgecrest Senior Living Center and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co.

── Jerry Hayes v. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc., d/b/a Ridgecrest Senior Living Center and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co. ── Court: Supreme Court of Iowa Date: May 29, 2026 Category: General In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 24–1991 Submitted February 18, 2026—Filed May 29, 2026 Jerry Hayes, Appellant, vs. Christian Retirement Homes, Inc., d/b/a Ridgecrest Senior Living Center, and West Bend Mutual Insurance Co., Appellees. On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeffrey Farrell, judge. A claimant seeks further review of a court of appeals decision that affirmed the district court’s decision upholding the workers’ compensation commissioner’s denial of workers’ compensation benefits. Decision of Court of Appeals Affirmed in Part and Vacated in Part; District Court Judgment Affirmed. Waterman, J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which all justices joined. Nicholas L. Shaull and Bryant A. Engbers of Spaulding & Shaull, P.L.C., Des Moines, for appellant. Michael S. Roling and Morgan R. Todd Borron of Peddicord Lillis, LLP, West Des Moines, for appellees.  2 Waterman, Justice. We granted further review in this case to address a recurring issue, namely, when the workers’ compensation commissioner rules against a claimant and necessarily rejects an argument without specifically discussing it, does the claimant have to file a motion for rehearing to preserve error on that argument for appellate review? At every level, from the deputy commissioner to our court, the claimant in this case argued that his employer as a matter of law should be bound by the opinion of the employer’s chosen treating physician in deciding whether his on-the-job accident caused a permanent disability. The employer obtained and relied on a second medical opinion to dispute permanency, and the commissioner, as factfinder, relied on that second opinion to deny benefits without addressing the claimant’s legal argument. The district court affirmed. The court of appeals determined that the claimant failed to preserve error on that legal argument by not filing a motion for rehearing to elicit a specific ruling on it. The court of appeals, determining that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, affirmed the agency’s denial of the claim. On our review, we hold that the claimant preserved error at the agency level when he argued that the employer was bound by the findings of its treating physician. The agency necessarily rejected that legal argument when it relied on another physician’s opinion to deny benefits. A motion for rehearing was not required. On the merits, we hold that employers are not necessarily bound by a causation opinion of a treating physician they select when another medical expert who examined the claimant provides a contrary opinion. We affirm the commissioner’s decision as supported by substantial evidence.  3 I. Factual and Procedural Background. The employer, Christian Retirement Homes, Inc., doing business in Davenport as Ridgecrest Senior Living Center (Ridgecrest), hired Jerry Hayes in July 2021 to work as a dishwasher. Among other duties, the written job description stated that the position entailed: Routinely engag[ing] in light to medium physical activity associated with moving foodstuffs, pushing and pulling carts and racks, lifting institutional size cooking equipment, and operating kitchen equipment. Routinely lift[ing] up to 25 lbs. Occasionally lift[ing] up to 50 lbs. while moving bulk food items and pushing/pulling loaded food carts and racks. Before he began working for Ridgecrest, Hayes underwent a physical examination with Dr. Christopher Crome, and Hayes filled out an