Court of Appeals Denies Temporary Benefits to Claimant Who Resigned and Later Rescinded Resignation

 Prairie View Management, Inc. v. Moran, No. 22-2023 (Iowa App. Sept. 27, 2023)

Claimant emailed her employer with her resignation on December 5, 2019, with the resignation being effective on December 20.  On December 9, she was injured at work.  She submitted a formal letter of resignation a day after the injury, giving the same December 20 end date.  After the injury, claimant's duties were modified.  Claimant testified that she verbally sought to rescind her resignation, but did not file a written resignation.  The employer never offered work to claimant after December 20 and did not pay temporary benefits.

The commissioner concluded that claimant was entitled to penalty benefits and temporary total disability benefits, as the employer had never offered work to claimant.  On judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the agency and concluded that claimant was not entitled to penalty or temporary benefits. 

The Court of Appeals notes that under section 85.33, an injured employee is disqualified from temporary benefits if the employee offers suitable work that the employee refuses.  The Court concluded that because the employer had offered suitable work for the time period up until December 20, claimant had been offered suitable work and had refused the suitable work, despite the fact that the employer had not specifically offered work after December 20.  The Court premised this decision on an unemployment case, Langley v. EAB, 490 N.W.2d 300 (Iowa App. 1992), which held that an employee could not rescind a resignation and still receive unemployment benefits.  The Court applied this decision, based on a different statutory scheme, to the workers' compensation context.  The Court concluded that "by offering suitable work to Moran between the date of injury and her self-selected last day of employment, Prairie View fulfilled its statutory obligations and thus did not owe temporary total benefits."

The Court finds that its holding was consistent with the public policy underlying the statute, as the primary purpose of the statute was to benefits the "worker and  his or her dependents, insofar as statutory requirements permit."   Here, according to the Court, the purpose of the statute was to provide temporary benefits until the claimant voluntarily quit and after that point, benefits were no longer payable.  The Court does not address the factual finding that claimant had rescinded her voluntary quit, nor the fact that the employer had not specifically offered employment to claimant following December 20, a finding that, on its face, appears to be a requirement of section 85.33.  Because temporary benefits were denied, the penalty finding was also overturned.