 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
[T] Hawkins v. TMC Transportation11/17/2003
Mark Hawkins appeals the decision of the district court denying workers' compensation benefits. REVERSED AND REMANDED.
The petitioner-appellant, Mark Hawkins (Hawkins), appeals the order of the district court in a judicial review proceeding. The district court affirmed the decision of Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner denying benefits because of untimely notice of an alleged work-related injury. We reverse.
Background
The appellant, Mark Hawkins, was employed by TMC Transportation (TMC) as an over-the-road truck driver. He claims that on March 15, 1999, he wrenched his back pulling a truck tarp. The next day he called the fleet manager for TMC and reported he had injured his back. Hawkins indicated he would seek chiropractic care on his own. The fleet manager acknowledges that Hawkins reported he had injured his back but denies being told the injury occurred while pulling on the truck tarp.
TMC claims it learned that Hawkins's injury was work-related in July 1999 after Hawkins was sent to a physician by TMC for an evaluation to determine his fitness to continue at TMC. Upon learning that the injury was work-related more than ninety days from the date of the incident, TMC paid for surgery and post-surgical expenses, as well as partial and temporary total disability from July 2, 1999, to October 17, 1999, and permanent partial disability from October 18, 1999, to October 30, 1999. Thereafter, Hawkins filed an arbitration petition seeking additional compensation benefits. TMC asserted it had not received timely notice and denied further liability.
The deputy workers' compensation commissioner who heard the evidence concluded that Hawkins had given timely notice and further that TMC, by virtue of having paid benefits, was precluded from raising the affirmative defense of lack of timely notice. The commissioner reversed the deputy commissioner, and the district court affirmed the commissioner.
Issues
The issues raised on appeal are:
1. Did the commissioner improperly place the burden of proving timely notice on Hawkins?
2. Is there substantial evidence to support the commissioner's finding that Hawkins failed to give timely notice of a work-related injury?
3. Because some benefits were paid, does Iowa Code section 86.13 (2001) preclude TMC from raising a notice defense?
Scope of Review
In Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Caselman, 657 N.W.2d 493, 498-99 (Iowa 2003), the court set forth principles to apply to judicial review of administrative decisions. Our review under Iowa Code chapter 17A is for correction of errors at law, not de novo. Locate.Plus.Com, Inc. v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 650 N.W.2d 609, 612 (Iowa 2002). Chapter 17A was amended in 1998, with amendments effective for agency actions commenced after July 1, 1999, however, the court in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. concluded that the amendments did not change the substantive law but reaffirmed long-established principles of administrative review. Wal-Mart Stores, 657 N.W.2d at 499. The "courts are not to simply rubberstamp the agency fact finding but engage in a fairly intensive review of the record to ensure that the fact finding is itself reasonable." Id.
Discussion
I. Timely Notice - Burden of Proof. In DeLong v. Iowa State Highway Comm'n, 229 Iowa 700, 703, 295 N.W. 91, 92 (1940), the court held the claim of lack of notice is an affirmative defense and the burden of proof would be on the party asserting it. In this case, TMC is asserting the affirmative defense of lack of timely notice. The commissioner stated in his ruling:
It is found that Mark [Hawkins]
Page 1 2 3 4 Iowa Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|