Iowa Workers' Compensation

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 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...

In Kone, Inc. v. Harrison , No. 08-891 (Iowa App. Feb. 23, 2011), the Iowa Court of Appeals addressed a situation where the deputy found the claimant not to be credible, and concluded that claimant had failed to establish a permanent impairment.  The commissioner reversed the decision on compensability, finding that the medical evidence supported the contention that there was a permanent impairment.  Also presented were issued of whether claimant retired because of his injuries or because of a planned retirement, and whether penalty was appropriate.  The commissioner concluded, contrary to the hearing deputy, that claimant was entitled to both healing period and penalty benefits.  The district court reversed the agency's decision on all three issues. The court noted the in determining whether substantial evidence supported the agency's decision, it was the agency's decision that was being reviewed, not the decision of the hearing deputy.  Although the district...