 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Zeigler v. Fleetguard2/25/2004
Worker, holding judgment against her employer for workers' compensation benefits, appeals from district court's denial of her application to lift stay of execution. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
Donna Zeigler was injured while working for Fleetguard, Inc. and was awarded workers' compensation benefits by the Workers' Compensation Commissioner. She converted her compensation award into a district court judgment under Iowa Code section 86.42 (2001) and attempted to collect on the judgment. Fleetguard and its insurer Travelers Insurance Company (collectively Fleetguard) eventually obtained a stay of execution. Zeigler applied to the district court under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.8 to lift the stay. The court refused, and Zeigler appealed. We reverse and remand.
I. Facts and Prior Proceedings
Zeigler obtained a final workers' compensation award on January 29, 2001. Both parties petitioned for judicial review-Zeigler on February 27, 2001, and Fleetguard on February 28. On March 8, 2001, well before the conclusion of the judicial-review proceeding, Zeigler attempted to collect her benefits by converting the workers' compensation award into a district court judgment as provided in Iowa Code section 86.42. The district court entered a judgment against Fleetguard on March 27, 2001, for compensation benefits, interest, and penalties.
Fleetguard did not appeal the March 27 judgment, but on March 30 it petitioned the district court for a stay of execution under Iowa Code section 17A.19(5)(b) (providing authority in the district court to stay an agency's action). The district court denied the stay, based on its application of the four-factor test of section 17A.19(5)(c): (1) the likelihood of Fleetguard's success in the judicial-review case; (2) whether Fleetguard would suffer irreparable injury if the stay were denied; (3) the extent to which a stay would "substantially harm" Zeigler; and (4) the public's interest in the decision.
The district court's order denying the stay reflected the general solicitude of our law for timely receipt of workers' compensation benefits. It concluded:
hese factors weigh heavily against the entry of a stay. Obviously, the withholding of benefits will have a direct effect on Zeigler [third factor] and the court believes that there is a public interest in paying workers' compensation benefits awarded by the [workers' compensation] commissioner until such time as the award may be found invalid [fourth factor].
While Fleetguard lost in its bid to stay execution under this statute, it eventually was successful in staying execution on the March 27 judgment by waiting until the judicial-review proceeding was concluded on September 19, 2001, then filing an appeal from that ruling as well as from the March 27 judgment. Fleetguard obtained a stay of execution by posting a supersedeas bond under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.7(4). Zeigler attempted to get the stay lifted under appellate rule 6.8, contending the "appeal" of the March 27 judgment was too late. The court refused to lift the stay, raising the sole issue in this appeal.
II. Analysis
Section 86.42 provides for transforming a workers' compensation award into an enforceable judgment:
Any party in interest may present a certified copy of an order or decision of the [workers' compensation] commissioner, [with exceptions not applicable here], and all papers in connection therewith, to the district court where judicial review of the agency action may be commenced. The court shall render a decree or judgment and cause the clerk to notify the parties. The decree or judgment... has the same effect and in all pr
Page 1 2 3 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|