Court of Appeals Dismisses Gross Negligence Suit Against Employer/Co-Employee. Finds Workers' Compensation is Exclusive Remedy
Mullen v. Grettenberg, No. 14-1699 (Iowa App. Oct. 14, 2015), involved a situation where an employee of a grain elevator (Mullen) died as a result of an accident in a grain bin. Grettenberg was the sole proprietor of the business and was also alleged to be a supervisor and co-employee. Mullen's estate argued that because Grettenberg was a co-employee and supervisor, the workers' compensation statute was not the exclusive remedy for recovery under section 85.20 of the statute. Grettenberg argued that he was the employer, and thus the exclusive remedy was under the workers' compensation statute.
The district court ruled in favor of Grettenberg, finding that a sole proprietor who works alongside his employee should be deemed an employer for purposes of a gross negligence statute. See Henrich v. Lorenz, 448 N.W.2d 327, 331 (Iowa 1989); Tigges v. City of Ames, 356 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Iowa 1984). The court found that the district court had correctly addressed the legal issue and found that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The court went on to address the estate's contention that the district court should have "deemed" Grettenberg an employee. The court found that precedent, Horsman v Wahl, 551 N.W.2d 619 (Iowa 1996) foreclosed this argument. The court stated : "Horsman teaches us that even where a sole proprietor purchases workers' compensation insurance and elects coverage under a provision defining the proprietor as an employee, the proprietor is considered an employer for purposes of section 85.20." In this case, there was no record that Grettenberg had included himself under the workers' compensation policy as an employee, but even if he had, he would not be considered a co-employee or supervisor for gross negligence purposes.
The estate also raised a state equal protection claim, arguing that similarly situated persons were not being treated alike under the decision of the district court. The Court of Appeals notes that regardless of the statutory form used by Grettenberg, Mullen could not sue him under the exclusive remedy provisions of the statute because he was an employer. The court found no equal protection violation.
The district court ruled in favor of Grettenberg, finding that a sole proprietor who works alongside his employee should be deemed an employer for purposes of a gross negligence statute. See Henrich v. Lorenz, 448 N.W.2d 327, 331 (Iowa 1989); Tigges v. City of Ames, 356 N.W.2d 503, 509 (Iowa 1984). The court found that the district court had correctly addressed the legal issue and found that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
The court went on to address the estate's contention that the district court should have "deemed" Grettenberg an employee. The court found that precedent, Horsman v Wahl, 551 N.W.2d 619 (Iowa 1996) foreclosed this argument. The court stated : "Horsman teaches us that even where a sole proprietor purchases workers' compensation insurance and elects coverage under a provision defining the proprietor as an employee, the proprietor is considered an employer for purposes of section 85.20." In this case, there was no record that Grettenberg had included himself under the workers' compensation policy as an employee, but even if he had, he would not be considered a co-employee or supervisor for gross negligence purposes.
The estate also raised a state equal protection claim, arguing that similarly situated persons were not being treated alike under the decision of the district court. The Court of Appeals notes that regardless of the statutory form used by Grettenberg, Mullen could not sue him under the exclusive remedy provisions of the statute because he was an employer. The court found no equal protection violation.
Comments
Post a Comment