Decision in Quaker Oats v. Main - Apportionment and Constitutionality of 85.34(7)

A recent decision addressing §85.34(7) of the Code has been issued.  In Quaker Oats v. Main, No. 08-1507 (Iowa Ct. App. Jan 22, 2010), 2010 WL 200420, the Court of Appeals addressed two issues regarding the apportionment section of the workers’ compensation law.  The court found that §85.34(7) applied to successive injuries with the same employer as long as one of the injuries occurred after September 7, 2004, the effective date of the legislation.  The commissioner had earlier ruled in Main that both injuries had to take place after September 7, 2004 in order for the legislation to apply, but the district court reversed this finding, and this conclusion was affirmed by the Court of Appeals.

The Main court also addressed the issue of the constitutionality of the provisions of House File 2581 that resulted in the legislation codified as §85.34(7).  The legislation had been attacked as being violative of the single subject provisions of the Iowa Constitution, Art. III, sec. 29.  The constitutionality of this provision had previously been attacked in Godfrey v. State of Iowa, 752 N.W.2d 413 (Iowa 2008), with the court holding that the plaintiff in that case lacked standing to bring the challenge to the legislation, because she had not been directly affected by the legislation.   In Main, the court held that claimant had filed his challenge to the constitutionality of the provision too late – that is, after the bill had been codified.  This rule was established in State v. Mabry, 460 N.W.2d 472, 475 (Iowa 1990), which had indicated that codification of the bill cured constitutional defects in the title or subject matter of the bill. 

Following the decision by the Court of Appeals, claimant sought further review of the decision, and the Supreme Court denied further review on March 23, 2010.   The upshot of Godfrey and Main is that it is next to impossible to challenge legislation on single subject grounds, given the fact that a claimant must be directly affected by the bill in the time period between passage of the bill and codification.  Section 85.34(7) was effective on September 7, 2004, and was codified in January of 2005, meaning that only four months was available in which to challenge the bill.  Although this protects the general rule that enactments of the General Assembly have a strong presumption of constitutionality, it often prevents an analysis of the constitutional issue on its merits and becomes, instead, a matter of timing. 

The commissioner has begun to address issues raised by §85.34(7) of the Code, and future blogs will address these issues.