Court of Appeals Affirms Sanction on Claimant for Service of Subpoena

 Tuttle v. Archer Daniels Midland Co., No. 23-1941 (Iowa App. Jan. 9, 2025)

In this unusual case, the deputy ordered claimant to reimburse her employer $3900 for allegedly harassing conduct in the service of a subpoena on a doctor.  Claimant alleges the sanction was a nullity because the agency lacked the authority to adjudicate subpoenas.  The Court disagrees and affirms the commissioner's sanction.

The Court had earlier addressed this case and had remanded to the district court to determine whether all administrative remedies had been exhausted and to determine whether review of agency action would provide an adequate remedy.  The district court found administrative remedies adequate and indicated claimant must exhaust such remedies before proceeding. Because claimant had not appealed to the commissioner, there was still a remedy to be exhausted.  

The case arose when claimant served a subpoena  on the employer's expert.  ADM subsequently sought sanctions, which claimant resisted, arguing that the agency did not have jurisdiction to impose sanctions.  Without holding a hearing, the deputy imposed sanctions because claimant had served a subpoena on Dr. Abernathey at his home, after business hours.  Claimant applied for interlocutory appeal to the workers' compensation commissioner, which the commissioner denied.  Claimant then applied for a writ of certiorari in district court.  When the case was before the Court of Appeals previously, the Court indicated that the proper remedy was a petition for review and the case was remanded. The district court concluded there was an adequate administrative remedy which must be exhausted.  

Two issues were presented to the Court of Appeals - whether the commissioner had authority to adjudicate subpoenas and whether claimant's due process rights were violated.  Claimant argued that under Chapter 17A.13(1) gives the power to enforce subpoenas to the court, thus depriving the agency of that power.  The Court concludes that this is not a matter of subject matter jurisdiction but of agency statutory authority.  Because the Court had earlier indicated that agency review processes must be exhausted, this argument was rejected.  The Court notes that earlier cases, such as Christenson v. Iowa Civil Rights Commission, 292 NW2d 429 (Iowa 1980) had found that there would be "profound disruption" if any discovery dispute were subject to appeal to the district court. Because there has been no final agency action of the subpoena, the Court again remands to the agency to address this matter.

On the due process question, the Court finds that this issue was not preserved because claimant did not obtain a ruling on the issue in the district court or agency.  Her rights were accordingly waived.

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

  Delaney v. Second Injury Fund , No. 23-0182 ((Iowa May 10, 2024) Claimant suffered an injury to her left leg and 33 years later suffered an injury to her right leg. Following surgery on the right leg, claimant developed lymphedema. She filed for benefits against the Fund and the commissioner concluded that because lymphedema was an unscheduled injury, claimant was not entitled to benefits against the Fund under 85.64. The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding that even if a second injury resulted in a sequella body as a whole injury, claimant was still entitled to consideration of the second injury under 85.64. The Supreme Court first concludes that the agency erred in concluding that a per se rule for vascular injuries that concluded that such injuries precluded an action against the Fund was erroneous.The Court rejects the reliance of the agency on Blacksmith v. All-American , finding that Blacksmith  did not suppo...
Read more

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

Nordstrom v. Carmer , No. 23-1423 (Iowa App. May 8, 2024) Claimant suffered an accepted injury to her right shoulder in August of 2018. She subsequently developed pain in her left shoulder due to overcompensating for her right shoulder injury with her other arm. Claimant's IME physician opined that the left shoulder injury was due to overcompensation due to the right shoulder injury while defendants' doctor indicated that the left shoulder injury was due to rheumatoid arthritis and was not work-related.  The commissioner concluded that both shoulder injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and found that the injuries should be treated as unscheduled under 85.34(2)(v).  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissoiner. On appeal, the Court of Appeals first concludes that the report of Dr. Segal, claimant's IME doctor, was supported by substantial evidence.  The Court noted that the decision concerning medical causation was essentially within the do...
Read more

Court of Appeals Dismisses Interlocutory Appeal as Moot

H.D. Supply Management v. Smith , No. 23-1656 (Iowa App. Sept. 18, 2024) In this interlocutory appeal, the parties requested the Court to decide whether a stay of a workers' compensation award was appropriate.  Claimant had filed a request for judgment under 86.42 following the commissioner's finding of permanent total disability.  Defendants moved to stay enforcement, despite the fact they had failed to post a bond in a timely manner.  Ultimately, the district court stayed the order, finding that claimant would  not be prejudiced despite the late posting of the bond. While the appeal was pending, the underlying claim was reversed and remanded to the commissioner (the underlying issue in the case was whether a combined arm and shoulder injury should be treated industrially, which the Supreme Court answered in the negative in Bridgestone Americas v. Anderson , 4 N.W.3d 676 (Iowa 2024). The parties argued that the case was not moot, given the fact that some benefits wo...
Read more