Court Affirms That Second Dismissal of Case is Without Prejudice

The court in Wal-Mart v. Henle, No. 1-554 (Iowa App. Aug. 10, 2011) addressed a situation which occurs with some frequency in workers' compensation claims.  In Henle, claimant had voluntarily dismissed and then refiled her claim.  The case was set for hearing, but by the time of the date set for hearing, permanency had not been determined and claimant requested a continuance.  Rather than grant a continuance, the agency dismissed the case, specifically indicating that this dismissal was without prejudice.  Defendant argued that under the Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, the dismissal was with prejudice, and claimant could not refile her claim (which she had done by the time of the decision in the case).  The court found that rules 1.943 and 1.946 were applicable to workers' compensation proceedings, as the parties had not argued otherwise.

The court noted that claimant did not file the second motion for dismissal, but that the case had been dismissed by the agency.  Recall that the claimant had simply sought a continuance.  The court found that under an exception in 1.943, which allowed dismissals without prejudice when in the interests of justice, the second dismissal was without prejudice, and the third action could proceed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Iowa Supreme Court Concludes Vascular Injuries are not Per Se Whole Body Injuries for Fund Purposes; Holds that a Sequella Injury to the Body As. Whole Does Not Automatically Preclude Fund Benefits

Court of Appeals Holds that Injuries to Two Shoulders Are Not to be Considered Industrially Under 85.34(2)(v)

Court of Appeals Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal as Moot