Court of Appeals Concludes Petition for Judicial Review Not Served in a Timely Manner

In Bell v. 3E, No. 19-0310 (Iowa App. Sept. 11, 2019), the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and concluded that a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation case was not served in a timely manner.  The petition was therefore reversed.

Petitioner filed a timely petition for judicial review but did not immediately serve the petition as required by IRCP 1.302(5) .  Although the petition was served by EDMS after being filed on May 22, 2018, the petition was not served by petitioner until August 24, two days after the district court noted that no service had occurred.  The district court concluded that the late service did not prejudice 3E.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court, and noted that section 17A.19(2) of the Code required service within ten days, by personal service or mail. The court noted that the EDMS rules do not equate to service of process when a petition is automatically served under those rules.  The court distinguished Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction, 928 N.W.2d 651, 653 (Iowa 2019) because in that case, service occurred via email, although not by personal service or mail as required by 17A 19(2).  In this case, service by the petitioner did not occur until after the lack of service was noted by the district court.  Notably, it does not appear as though respondent requested dismissal until the district court noted the failure of service.  Despite this, the court found that petitioner had not substantially complied with section 17A.19(2). Petitioner's claim was dismissed.

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 May 2024  Roth v. General Millls, Inc. , No. 1657652.01 (App. May 3, 2024) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to the shoulder, but the injury was found not to have extended to the body. Claimant was found eligible for 24 weeks of permanency benefits.  Unauthorized medical care received by claimant was denied (Phillips). On appeal the commissioner affirmed the decision of the deputy without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision. April 2024 Poe v. Capital Express, Inc. and SIF , No. 22004117.01 (App. April 30, 2024) - In this action, claimant was found to have sustained a 6% injury to the leg and was awarded healing period benefits from April 4, 2022 through August 21, 2002.  A 50% penalty was awarded on all accrued weekly benefits for an unreasonable delay in payment without conveying the reason for the delay (Walsh).  Fund benefits were also awarded, but were not a part of the appeal.  The emplo
Read more