Supreme Court Holds that COVID-related Supervisory Orders Do Not Extend Time Period for Filing Petition for Judicial Review in Workers' Compensation Case

 Askvig v. Snap-On Logistics Co., No. 20-0997 (Iowa Dec. 17, 2021)

This case presents the question of whether the Supreme Court's COVID order of April 2, 2020 and May 8, 2020, which tolled the statute of limitations "or similar deadline" for commencing an action in district court applies to the filing of a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation case, specifically a PJR filed following a deemed denial of a rehearing application before the agency.  The Court concludes that the statute is not tolled in such a situation.

Claimant filed an application for rehearing with the workers' compensation commissioner on February 25, 2020.  Under operation of the workers' compensation regulation at 876 IAC 4.24, if the commissioner fails to act on an application within 20 days, it is deemed denied. In Ms. Askvig's case, this was March 16, 2020.  Under section 17A.19(3), an application for rehearing which is deemed denied, a PJR must be filed within 30 days of the deemed denial date, which in Ms. Askvig's case was April 15, 2020.  No petition was filed by that date.

Claimant's attorney was contacted by defendants' attorney noting that a petition for judicial review had not been filed and therefore the agency's action should take effect.  Thirteen days later, claimant's counsel responded that the court's COVID supervisory orders had the effect of tolling the deadline for seeking judicial review.  A petition was filed on that same date.  The district court concluded that the petition for judicial review was not timely filed.  Claimant appealed.

The Supreme Court first  notes that 17A.19(3) requires a petition be filed within 30 days of the deemed denial date.  Claimant acknowledged that the petition was not timely filed under 17A.19(3), but alleged that the Court's COVID supervisory orders, which had tolled the statute of limitations for 76 days (from March 1, 2020 to June 1, 2020) applied to the filing of a Petition for Judicial Review.  The Court notes that the deadline in 17A.19(3) was not a statute of limitations, but instead was an appellate deadline.  In the case of appellate deadlines, the claims have already had a full hearing and there was "less tolerance for equitable modification of appellate deadlines." The Court concludes that filing a judicial review would not present the same COVID-related difficulties that come with bringing an original action.  

The Court also notes that the 30 day deadline under 17A.19(3) is jurisdictional and thus could not be waived by the opposing party and was not subject to equitable tolling.  Citing Sioux City Brick and Tile v. EAB, 449 NW2d 634, 638 (Iowa 1989), the Court noted that "the courts of our state cannot expand their judicial review jurisdiction by allowing appeal of agency action in contested cases beyond the time limit specific for that purpose by the legislature."  The Court also noted that workers' compensation cases were different from traditional civil actions in that workers' compensation actions had been entrusted to the executive branch.  Extending deadlines would deny finality to the actions of another branch of government.  

The Court also notes that Askvig's attorney did not claim he delayed filing the petition in reliance on the Court's COVID orders and had acknowledged that the deadline was overlooked.  The Court also rejected the claimant's contention that "similar deadlines" in the order contemplated appellate deadlines. The Court also rejected the argument that claimant had substantially complied with 17A.19(3), noting that substantial compliance had never been held sufficient under that section.  In any event, the Court found that there had not been substantial compliance with that section.  Claimant's petition was therefore dismissed.