Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Petition for Interlocutory Review
In a case involving only procedural issues, the Court of Appeals affirmed the finding of the district court that it did not have jurisdiction to hear an interlocutory appeal of a case that presented the issue of whether workers' compensation or the Municipal Fire and Police Retirement System of Iowa (MFPRSI) governed the issue of compensation for claimant. City of Davenport v. Timm, No. 13-1357 (Iowa App. Nov. 13, 2014). Claimant was a police officer who was injured while enrolled in the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy. She returned to work, but because she was limited to simple office tasks, she was asked to resign, and told that if she did not resign she would be terminated.
Following her resignation, claimant applied for a disability pension with MFPRSI and learned that her resignation disqualified her from benefits under that system. She then filed for benefits under Chapter 85. The city moved to dismiss the workers' compensation proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This motion was denied, but a motion for summary judgment was filed, and this was also denied, premised on the fact that it was based on the same facts as the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the commissioner found there were two distinct proceedings, and remanded the summary judgment motion for a decision. Summary judgment was granted by the deputy. The commissioner reversed this finding, and remanded for a finding on the merits of the workers' compensation claims.
At this juncture, the employer filed a petition for judicial review and an application to stay the agency action. The district court, acting sua sponte, concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the petition for judicial review because the requirements for interlocutory review were not satisfied. The petition was dismissed and the request for stay denied.
On appeal, both parties agreed that there had been no final agency action, and thus the judicial review action was interlocutory. The court noted that there is a two part inquiry for determining whether interlocutory appeal was appropriate. First, the moving party must demonstrate that administrative remedies had been exhausted. Second, the moving party bears the burden of establishing that waiting for the administrative process to conclude would not be an adequate remedy. Citing City of Des Moines v. City Dev. Bd., 633 N.W.2d 305, 309 (Iowa 2001). To demonstrate inadequacy of the remedy, the party must demonstrate "irreparable injury of substantial dimension."
The court noted that the city's argument was that section 85 did not apply to persons who are entitled to benefits under chapters 410 and 411 of the Code. The city argued that it was irreparable harm to have the city "undergo litigation it was never intended to undergo." The court noted that the city had not presented evidence of a legislative intent that the workers compensation statute, section 85.1(4), granted immunity or a deprivation of subject matter to the agency. Rather, the agency was allowed to determine this question in the first instance, as it had done. The court found that the city's argument assumed its own conclusion, that claimant was eligible for benefits under chapters 410 and 411 and thus not eligible for benefits under chapter 85. The court found it was impossible to judicially review the agency's conclusion on this issue when no such conclusion had yet been reached. The court noted that the agency process should be allowed to reach its conclusion before judicial review would be appropriate. The action of the district court was therefore affirmed and the case remanded to the agency.
In dissent, Justice Vogel argued that the commissioner had concluded that claimant's only remedy was under chapter 85, and thus had already decided the question of jurisdiction, making the claim ripe for review at the district and appellate court levels. The dissent would not have required the case to be sent back to the agency for a decision on the merits inasmuch as a decision had already been reached on the question of whether the workers' compensation statute applied.
Following her resignation, claimant applied for a disability pension with MFPRSI and learned that her resignation disqualified her from benefits under that system. She then filed for benefits under Chapter 85. The city moved to dismiss the workers' compensation proceeding for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. This motion was denied, but a motion for summary judgment was filed, and this was also denied, premised on the fact that it was based on the same facts as the motion to dismiss. On appeal, the commissioner found there were two distinct proceedings, and remanded the summary judgment motion for a decision. Summary judgment was granted by the deputy. The commissioner reversed this finding, and remanded for a finding on the merits of the workers' compensation claims.
At this juncture, the employer filed a petition for judicial review and an application to stay the agency action. The district court, acting sua sponte, concluded that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the petition for judicial review because the requirements for interlocutory review were not satisfied. The petition was dismissed and the request for stay denied.
On appeal, both parties agreed that there had been no final agency action, and thus the judicial review action was interlocutory. The court noted that there is a two part inquiry for determining whether interlocutory appeal was appropriate. First, the moving party must demonstrate that administrative remedies had been exhausted. Second, the moving party bears the burden of establishing that waiting for the administrative process to conclude would not be an adequate remedy. Citing City of Des Moines v. City Dev. Bd., 633 N.W.2d 305, 309 (Iowa 2001). To demonstrate inadequacy of the remedy, the party must demonstrate "irreparable injury of substantial dimension."
The court noted that the city's argument was that section 85 did not apply to persons who are entitled to benefits under chapters 410 and 411 of the Code. The city argued that it was irreparable harm to have the city "undergo litigation it was never intended to undergo." The court noted that the city had not presented evidence of a legislative intent that the workers compensation statute, section 85.1(4), granted immunity or a deprivation of subject matter to the agency. Rather, the agency was allowed to determine this question in the first instance, as it had done. The court found that the city's argument assumed its own conclusion, that claimant was eligible for benefits under chapters 410 and 411 and thus not eligible for benefits under chapter 85. The court found it was impossible to judicially review the agency's conclusion on this issue when no such conclusion had yet been reached. The court noted that the agency process should be allowed to reach its conclusion before judicial review would be appropriate. The action of the district court was therefore affirmed and the case remanded to the agency.
In dissent, Justice Vogel argued that the commissioner had concluded that claimant's only remedy was under chapter 85, and thus had already decided the question of jurisdiction, making the claim ripe for review at the district and appellate court levels. The dissent would not have required the case to be sent back to the agency for a decision on the merits inasmuch as a decision had already been reached on the question of whether the workers' compensation statute applied.
The defense focused on testimony that the decedent was supposed to be in the employer's
ReplyDeleteheadquarters when he was not travelling in his job in international sales. The employer did not dispute
that it provided the office equipment in the home office or that the claimant
sent some work related e-mails the morning of his accident
Compensation Claims