Supreme Court Concludes That Service by Email is Sufficient in WC Petition for Judicial Review

In Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction, No. 18-0047 (Iowa May 24, 2019), the Supreme Court reversed earlier rulings that held that service of a petition for judicial review was not timely when served via email rather than regular mail.  The IAPA, section 17A.19(2), provides that it is a jurisdictional requirement for petitioner to mail a copy of the petition to all attorneys of record.  In this case, petitioner emailed a copy of the petition in a timely manner, but did not mail the petition within 10 days as required by statute. 

Both the district court and court of appeals held that since the statute did not discuss the emailing of the petition service was untimely and the petition was dismissed.  The Supreme Court reverses and discusses the fact that when the statute was enacted in 1981, email was virtually unknown.  The court also notes that most discussions between attorneys in 2019 occurs via email and that there has been a change such that email is the "required or preferred form" of communication. The court agreed that the substantial compliance doctrine under 17A.19(2) could not be applied to change the jurisdictional requirement.  Instead the substantial compliance doctrine permits leeway in meeting the requirements of the statute where the purpose and meaning of the statute have been met.  The court concludes that the pervasive nature of email in legal communications "draws email into the circle of substantial compliance."  The court finds that to require postal mail to be used "would be perfunctory and contrary to the doctrine." Because communications between and among attorneys by email is expected, reliable and convenient, any other outcome would put statutes and courts out of touch with change that is expected and desirable in life."  The claim was reversed and remanded to the district court.