Court of Appeals Dismisses Petition for Judicial Review for Failure to Comply with Section 17A.19(2)

In Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction, No. 18-0047 (Iowa App. Nov. 21, 2018), the court of appeals once again finds that strict compliance with section 17A.19(2) of the Code, a portion of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, is required, despite the liberal construction generally given to claims in the workers' compensation arena.  In Ortiz, the district court dismissed claimant's petition for judicial review because of the failure of claimant to substantially comply with the service requirements of section 17A.19(2) and the court of appeals upholds this dismissal.

Following filing of the petition for judicial review in EDMS, respondents' counsel was added as a "party to the litigation" in EDMS.  A copy of the petition for judicial review was emailed to respondent's counsel.  Ortiz' counsel filed an affidavit of service noting that the PJR was emailed to counsel.  A copy of the petition was not placed in the regular mail until October 3, 2017.  The petition had been filed on September 19, 2017, so the mailing of the document was outside of the 10 day limit specified in 17A.19(2).  Respondents subsequently filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that there was failure to substantially comply with the provisions of 17A.19(2). 

The statute requires either personal service or service by mail to all parties named in the petition.  The statute also allows service to be made on the party's attorney of record before the agency.  The court notes that "substantial" not "literal" compliance is all that is necessary to invoke the jurisdiction of the district court.  Petitioner argues that because respondents counsel received a copy of the petition through EDMS and by email, there was substantial compliance.  The court notes that other cases finding substantial compliance all dealt with mailing which was accomplished prior to the expiration of 10 days from the filing of the petition.  The court finds that emailing or delivery through EDMS would require us to read into the statute language the legislature could provide, but has not yet provided. 

The court concludes that because Ortiz made no attempt to comply with the service requirements of section 17A.19(2) before the 10 day period expired, the district court had no jurisdiction and the case was properly dismissed.  The court declines to expand the means of service beyond those expressed by the legislature. 


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

Thomas v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 23-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2023) Claimant initial suffered a compensable injury to his right eye in 2017.  He subsequently sustained several injuries in 2018 while stepping off a pontoon boat, which he attributed to a lack of depth perception as a result of his eye issues.  The deputy ruled in favor of claimant, but the commissioner reversed, finding that the 2018 injuries were not a sequelae of the original eye injuries.   The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  The Court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion and noted that although claiant speculated that his fall was caused by his right eye injuries, claimant could not specifically recall what happened and there were no witnesses to provide context.  The speculation of medical experts that vision loss caused the fall
Read more

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu
Read more

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions April 2024 Burden v. United Parcel Service , No. 21013153.01 (App. April 24, 2024) - Claimant was found credible by the deputy, who concluded claimant had suffered a left knee injury as well as a neck injury.  Because claimant continued to work for more wages than at the time of the injury, the claim was considered functionally and claimant found to have a 27% whole body impairment (Walsh). Defendants argued that claimant had not sustained a compensable neck injury on appeal and urged that Dr. Taylor's IME should not have been credited over claimant's treating physician.  The commissioner affirms the decision of the deputy.  The commissioner noted that claimant had stated he had symptoms that were indicative of cervical spine involvement early in the injury process.  The commissioner noted that the treating neurosurgeon had clearly identified a cervical injury and that this bolstered the credibility of Dr. Taylor's IME. 5 m
Read more