# Barton v. Nevada Poultry Company

> Supreme Court of Iowa · September 19, 1961 · 253 Iowa 285

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712703

## Case

- **Full name:** Alice Barton, Appellant, v. Nevada Poultry Company, Employer, and Hawkeye Security Insurance Company, Insurer, Appellees
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Iowa
- **Decided:** September 19, 1961
- **Citations:** 253 Iowa 285; 110 N.W.2d 660; 1961 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 593
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Larson
- **Judges:** Hays, Garfield, Bliss, Oliver, Thompson, Thornton, Snell, Larson, Peterson
- **Cited by:** 32 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712703

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- finding a compensable systemic condition affecting the body as a whole “as a result of the blow to the right foot, a circulatory ailment, . . . affecting her entire nervous system”
- holding that claimant’s complex regional pain syndrome or Sudeck’s atrophy was an unscheduled industrial disability

## Opinion text

Larson, J.
(dissenting) — I find myself unable to concur in the majority opinion filed herein for, while the language used by the Commissioner in his decision is not absolutely clear, it is quite clear he found as a fact that the physical disability or actual injury suffered by the employee was confined solely to the scheduled area. The evidence amply sustained that determination, and thus was binding upon the court.
Functionally this injury totally disables the employee, a result not unusual when, as here, age, experience or education is also involved. However, the legislature clearly provided a limit to the recovery for the total loss or impairment of certain scheduled areas in section 85.35, Code, 1958, and, while we have not passed directly on the issue, we have clearly indicated our position as to the limit of recovery when the employee does not prove physical impairment extending beyond that area. I think our position, even if stated as dictum, has been sound. Trial courts and .textbook writers have so understood us. See “The Iowa Law of Workmen’s Compensation”, Research Series No. 22, 1960; Soukup v. Shores Co., 222 Iowa 272, 277 , 268 N.W. 598 ; Dailey v. Pooley Lbr. Co., 233 Iowa 758, at 764, 765 , 10 N.W.2d 569 . I do not believe it wise or just to depart from that position. To do so would invade the province of the legislature, a, step we do not take except in most compelling circumstances.
The true rule in this state, as I see it, is that when there is am injury to and'the resultant loss or impairment of a scheduled member or area for which compensation is specifically fixed by the statute (section 85.35), the amount of compensation so fixed governs unless, as a result of the injury, it is shown that *294 other bodily functions are also damaged. There was no such finding justified here and I would affirm the trial court’s decision.
Peterson, J., joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9712703. Public record. Not legal advice.