« Return to Work Issues in the Iowa Workers' Compensation System |
Main Blog Page
| Will Nightshift Workers Have Work Comp Claims if They Develop Cancer? »
In a decision issued this morning, the Iowa Supreme Court shows its willingness to review and strike the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner's administrative rules if those rules are unfair.
In its Zieckler v. Ampride decision this morning, the Court was willing to look past the fact that a claimant did not cite or specifically rely upon a statutory provision the Court deemed pertinent. Instead, the Court took a more practical approach and got to the merits of the dispute.
At issue was an administrative rule issued by the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner that required dismissal of an intra-agency appeal if the appealing party did not reimburse a party that initially bore the expense of the hearing transcript within 30 days of taking the appeal. Under the administrative rule at issue, the Commissioner was mandated to dismiss the appeal if the reimbursement was not timely made. Because the Claimant in this case did not make the timely reimbursement, the Commissioner dismissed the pending intra-agency appeal.
However, the Iowa Supreme Court noted that Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(k) permits reveral of aagency action if the action was not required by law and the negative impact of the Commissioner's action on the private rights of a litigant is so grossly disproportionate to the benefits accruing to the public interest that the Commissioner's actions are deemed to lack any foundation in rational agency policy. In reviewing the administrative rule that required dismissal of this appeal, the Court concluded that there was no prejudice to the public interests or delay in the processing of the appeal because of Claimant's failure to reimburse the transcript costs. However, the Court noted that this ruling had a very negative impact on the claimant's rights (dismissal of an appeal). Therefore, the Court invalidated the administrative rule.
That being said, it should be noted that the Commissioner has already amended administrative rule 876 IAC 4.30. It appears that the amended version of this Rule is likely appropriate and will be in full force. An appealing party is still required to reimburse another party for the initial cost of the hearing transcript. However, the rule now makes dismissal a discretionary sanction rather than a mandatory sanction.
From a practitioner's standpoint, I see this case as offering three learning tools:
1. Be sure to read and strictly adhere to those administrative rules. Failure to do so may result in serious sanctions.
2. Be sure to plead and cite all binding legal authority. The dissenter from the Iowa Supreme Court would have avoided the merits of this case and held that the rule should be upheld in this case because the Claimant failed to specifically plead or cite the applicable statutory authority relied upon by the majority to invalidate this administrative rule.
3. Be sure to think about whether an adminsitrative agency's actions, rules, or decisions are required by law and whether those actions may have a grossly disproportionate effect on your client's rights when compared to the public interests. I do not recall the Iowa Supreme Court using Iowa Code section 17A.19(10)(k) as a means to invalidate administrative action in the past. This may be an effective tool to use to seek reversal in some instances and should be contemplated in the future.
Posted by William H. Grell on December 14, 2007 9:26 AM
|
Permalink
