Iowa Workers' Compensation

In Logan v. The Bon Ton Stores, Inc. , No. 19-0608 (Iowa May 1, 2020), the court addressed a recurring question of service of judicial review petitions in workers' compensation actions.  The statute, 17A.19(2), requires personal service or service by mail within ten days.  Earlier cases, including Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , 928 N.W.2d 651 (Iowa 2019) had found that substantial compliance with the statute was sufficient to confer jurisdiction. In Ortiz, service had been by email and this was found to substantially comply with the statute.  The court describes  Logan  as a codicil to Ortiz . Claimant appeared pro so in this case, filed her petition for judicial review and sent the petition to opposing counsel by fax.  The court noted that defendants were not prejudiced by receipt by fax, since this was received by counsel well within the ten day limit.  Although the court noted that the golden age of faxes was well in the past (and thus unl...

In Bell v. 3E , No. 19-0310 (Iowa App. Sept. 11, 2019), the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court and concluded that a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation case was not served in a timely manner.  The petition was therefore reversed. Petitioner filed a timely petition for judicial review but did not immediately serve the petition as required by IRCP 1.302(5) .  Although the petition was served by EDMS after being filed on May 22, 2018, the petition was not served by petitioner until August 24, two days after the district court noted that no service had occurred.  The district court concluded that the late service did not prejudice 3E. On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed the decision of the district court, and noted that section 17A.19(2) of the Code required service within ten days, by personal service or mail. The court noted that the EDMS rules do not equate to service of process when a petition is automatically serv...

In Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction , No. 18-0047 (Iowa May 24, 2019), the Supreme Court reversed earlier rulings that held that service of a petition for judicial review was not timely when served via email rather than regular mail.  The IAPA, section 17A.19(2), provides that it is a jurisdictional requirement for petitioner to mail a copy of the petition to all attorneys of record.  In this case, petitioner emailed a copy of the petition in a timely manner, but did not mail the petition within 10 days as required by statute.  Both the district court and court of appeals held that since the statute did not discuss the emailing of the petition service was untimely and the petition was dismissed.  The Supreme Court reverses and discusses the fact that when the statute was enacted in 1981, email was virtually unknown.  The court also notes that most discussions between attorneys in 2019 occurs via email and that there has been a change such that email is the "r...

In Ortiz v. Loyd Roling Construction, No. 18-0047 (Iowa App. Nov. 21, 2018), the court of appeals once again finds that strict compliance with section 17A.19(2) of the Code, a portion of the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, is required, despite the liberal construction generally given to claims in the workers' compensation arena.  In Ortiz , the district court dismissed claimant's petition for judicial review because of the failure of claimant to substantially comply with the service requirements of section 17A.19(2) and the court of appeals upholds this dismissal. Following filing of the petition for judicial review in EDMS, respondents' counsel was added as a "party to the litigation" in EDMS.  A copy of the petition for judicial review was emailed to respondent's counsel.  Ortiz' counsel filed an affidavit of service noting that the PJR was emailed to counsel.  A copy of the petition was not placed in the regular mail until October 3, 2017.  The pet...