An Iowa court ruled that an injured worker was able to receive two different kinds of prosthesis, after his employer argued that he had already received one and could not claim another through workers’ compensation.

Allen Conell worked for Nestle USA repairing machines. He was clearing a jam in a bag-sealing machine and the machine closed on his hand. Nestle had changed the machine from a mechanical operation to an electronic operation and had not reinstalled a release mechanism, so Conell had to manually take apart the machine to free his hand. He had several surgeries on his hand and shoulder and ultimately was approved for a mechanical prosthetic so he could move his thumb and index finger. He only used it for a few hours a day because he claimed the hand caused him emotional distress, and it was very heavy and difficult to use for an extended time. He told a psychologist he avoided the public because he felt “emotional pain at being regarded as a Frankenstein figure with a visibly damaged hand”. He requested a more natural looking, passive prosthesis.

A deputy workers’ compensation commissioner determined that there was a connection between Conell’s PTSD and depression and his work injury, and ordered his employer to pay permanent total disability benefits and to pay for a passive prosthetic hand. Nestle USA appealed his request, saying it should be denied based on Iowa Code Section 85.27 which limits workers to one set of “reasonable and necessary” prosthetics. On this intra-agency appeal the commissioner reversed the deputy’s award of a passive prosthetic.

The Court of Appeals of Iowa upheld a decision from the district court, determining that he was eligible for a passive prosthetic. The language in the section states “the employer shall furnish reasonable and necessary crutches, artificial members and appliances but shall not be required to furnish more than one set of permanent prosthetic devices.” The Court said the commissioner had focused on the language regarding one set of prosthetics, but had not focused on the language regarding a reasonable and necessary set of prosthetics. The court considered the circumstances of the case and determined that a passive prosthetic hand was a necessary part of his care, and an extension of his existing prosthetic. They saw the prosthetics as a single device which could be used interchangeably in the hours of the day, depending on his needs.

Read more about the case here.