Supreme Court Concludes District Court Service by Fax is Substantial Compliance with 17A.19(2)

In Logan v. The Bon Ton Stores, Inc., No. 19-0608 (Iowa May 1, 2020), the court addressed a recurring question of service of judicial review petitions in workers' compensation actions.  The statute, 17A.19(2), requires personal service or service by mail within ten days.  Earlier cases, including Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction, 928 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa 2019) had found that substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. In Ortiz, service had been by email and this was found to substantially comply with the statute.  The court describes Logan as a codicil to Ortiz.

Claimant appeared pro so in this case, filed her petition for judicial review and sent the petition to opposing counsel by fax.  The court noted that defendants were not prejudiced by receipt by fax, since this was received by counsel well within the ten day limit.  Although the court noted that the golden age of faxes was well in the past (and thus unlikely to occur again) the court concluded that service in this case, in this situation, was substantial compliance with the statute allowing the case to proceed.  The court found service by fax was similar enough to service by email to constitute substantial compliance.

Perhaps the most remarkable thing about the case is that Justice McDonald dissented, finding that service in compliance with the statute was the exclusive means by which a person or party may seek judicial review.  Justice McDonald noted that although Ortiz had been an email case, Ms. Logan's case was a fax case, which was not mentioned in the statute.  He concluded that Ortiz allowed for service by email only because the Iowa Court Rules allow for electronic service.  He concluded that fax service was "unexpected and [would] jeopardize the purpose of the statute."  Justice Oxley joined in the dissent.