 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Jahn v. Rehab10/30/2002
Embassy Rehab appeals from the order denying its application for stay of the district court's December 3, 2001, order of judgment in a workers' compensation action. AFFIRMED.
Considered by Vogel, P.J., and Mahan, and Zimmer, JJ. Hecht, J. takes no part.
On September 28, 2001, the Chief Deputy Workers' Compensation Commissioner rendered an appeal decision awarding Amy Jahn permanent partial disability benefits. Embassy Rehab filed a petition for judicial review of the award but did not seek to stay execution. While the judicial review was proceeding in Polk County, Jahn filed an Application for Judgment in the Woodbury County District Court, which was granted by order entered December 3, 2001. Upon notice of the order, Embassy Rehab filed an application for stay of judgment with the Woodbury County District Court as well as with the Workers' Compensation Commissioner. The agency denied the stay and no appeal of that denial was taken. The district court, following a hearing, also denied the application before it. Embassy Rehab appeals from the district court order.
Our review is limited to correction of errors of law. See 2800 Corp. v. Fernandez, 528 N.W.2d 124, 126 (Iowa 1995).
Embassy Rehab's first two arguments are that (1) Jahn improperly failed to provide notice of her filing of the application for judgment in Woodbury County, and (2) the court violated Iowa Code section 86.42 (2001) by entering an order of judgment while the appeal was progressing in Polk County. Because these contentions were not addressed or ruled upon below, they have not been preserved for our review. See Meier v. Senecaut III, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 2002).
Embassy Rehab further contends the district court improperly based the denial of the application for stay on Iowa Code section 17A.19(5)(c), rather than analyzing whether it had "general" or "equitable" authority to grant the stay. We conclude the court correctly denied the application regardless of the standard under which it was addressed. We first find it significant to note that Embassy Rehab offers no authority for the proposition the district court possessed some extra-statutory, equitable authority to grant the stay. Moreover, the appropriate method to seek a stay is contained in section 17A.19(5), which authorizes and details the process for seeking such a stay of execution from the agency, and provides a method of reviewing a denial of that request in the district court. Embassy Rehab failed to follow this procedure and accordingly, we affirm the district court's denial of Embassy Rehab's application for stay.
AFFIRMED.
|