Court of Appeals Holds That Discovery Dispute Must Be Challenged Through Petition for Judicial Review

 Tuttle v. Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner, No. 21-1246 (Iowa App. Dec 21, 2022)

During the course of claimant's workers' compensation case, she sought discovery of surveillance conducted by the employer.  the employer stated that there was "none."  In a later DME, the employer indicated to the doctor that visual images existed demonstrated claimant as she walked into work and left work.  Claimant sought this material from the doctor via subpoena, which the doctor provided.  The employer sought a protective order regarding the subpoena and sought sanctions against claimant.  The deputy found that the agency lacked jurisdiction to quash the subpoena and indicated the employer would need to proceed with an action in district court.  The deputy also found, however, that the protective order could be challenged and issued a protective order in the form of Dr. Abernathey's fees, in the amount of $3900.

Claimant filed an interlocutory appeal to the commissioner, who denied the appeal because it was interlocutory and did not materially affect the final decision.  

Claimant filed a petition for writ of certiorari in district court, claiming that the deputy acted illegally by ruling on the contested subpoenas.  The commissioner resisted, arguing that judicial review was the exclusive means to contest the action and further indicating that claimant was required to exhaust administrative remedies.  The district court found that claimant could not file a writ of certiorari, as chapter 17A was the exclusive means to challenge agency action.  The petition for writ of certiorari was dismissed.

On appeal, the Court agreed that chapter 17A.19 provided the exclusive means for seeking review of intermediate agency action, citing Iowa Industrial Commissioner v Davis, 286 N.W.2d 658 (Iowa 1979).  The Court of Appeals affirmed this earlier finding of the Supreme Court, but noted that "when a petition for a writ of certiorari is improper, 'we may treat the case as a proper chapter 17A appeal if the situation merits.'"  In this case, the petition for writ of certiorari was filed within 30 days, as required by 17A.19.  It explained the nature of the agency action being challenged and was filed in Polk County, which was the appropriate venue for a petition for judicial review.  Because the petition for writ of certiorari contained the information required of a petition for judicial review, the "petition for a writ of certiorari could be considered by the district court as a petition for judicial review."  The district court should order claimant to present a recast petition and thereafter rule on the merits.  The case was remanded to the district court for further proceedings to determine whether adequate administrative remedies were exhausted and whether review of final agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  If both of those requirements were met, the court was instructed to consider the merits of claimant's allegations.