Blasdell v. Linnhaven, Inc.
| Citation | 989 N.W.2d 131 |
| Docket Number | 21-1968 |
| Decision Date | 07 April 2023 |
| Parties | Roger BLASDELL, Appellee, v. LINNHAVEN, INC. and Accident Fund National Insurance Company /United Heartland, Appellants. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
989 N.W.2d 131
Roger BLASDELL, Appellee,
v.
LINNHAVEN, INC. and Accident Fund National Insurance Company /United Heartland, Appellants.
No. 21-1968
Supreme Court of Iowa.
Submitted January 19, 2023
Filed April 7, 2023
Laura Ostrander, Lansing, Michigan, for appellants.
Thomas M. Wertz and Mindi M. Vervaecke of Wertz Law Firm, Cedar Rapids, for appellees.
Christensen, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Waterman, Mansfield, and McDermott, JJ., joined. McDonald, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Oxley, J., joined. May, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
CHRISTENSEN, Chief Justice.
We must decide when a married couple's separation results in spousal desertion within the meaning of Iowa Code section 85.42(1)(a ) (2017). Almost two and a half years into their marriage, the wife in this case left the marital home in Delhi in search of employment elsewhere. She ultimately accepted a position in Cedar Rapids and moved in with a family friend. Meanwhile, the husband and the wife's son from a previous relationship moved for financial reasons to Manchester, where the husband worked. The husband and wife never lived together again, but they remained in contact, supported each other financially, and never sought a divorce.
A year after her move, the wife was permanently and totally disabled as a result of a work injury and was awarded workers’ compensation benefits. She passed away from an overdose of prescription medication approximately four years later. When the husband filed a claim for burial expenses and death benefits as the surviving spouse, his wife's employer and her insurer claimed he was not entitled to those benefits under Iowa Code section 85.42(1)(a ) because he had willfully deserted his wife without any fault by her. The workers’ compensation commissioner agreed.
On judicial review, the district court reversed the workers’ compensation commissioner's decision, concluding it was not supported by substantial evidence. The court of appeals affirmed the district court, and we granted the employer's application for further review. For the reasons explained below, we affirm the district court decision that there was not substantial evidence to support a finding that the husband deserted his wife without fault by her under Iowa Code section 85.42(1)(a ).
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Roger and Heather Blasdell long held a nontraditional relationship that dates back to at least 1998. In March 1999, Heather gave birth to their daughter, whom Heather and Roger placed in a guardianship with a maternal relative who they felt was better able to address their daughter's needs, including special health issues. They eventually married on August 23, 2008, and lived together with Heather's teenage son from a previous relationship until January 2011, when they separated largely for financial reasons. Heather had just lost her job, and Roger could not afford their rent alone in Delhi. Unable to find another job in the area, Heather moved to Clinton for a few months with only her clothes and vehicle. Shortly thereafter, she moved in with a family friend in Cedar Rapids and started a position there with Linnhaven, Inc., as a direct care provider. Roger stayed in the Delhi home with Heather's son for three to four months after Heather left, but he could not afford to continue paying the rent. Consequently, Heather's son moved with Roger to Manchester, where Roger worked.
Roger began dating another woman, Angela, in Manchester, and Heather's son later moved in with Heather in Cedar Rapids but continued to commute with an uncle to attend school in Manchester. In 2011 and 2012, Roger filed his taxes as "married filing separately." He did not list Heather as a spouse on his 2012 Iowa return and listed himself as single on a W-4 form in 2011 and 2015.
On November 5, 2012, Heather sustained an injury while working at Linnhaven, Inc., and sought workers’ compensation benefits from Linnhaven, Inc., and its insurer, Accident Fund National Insurance Company/United Heartland (collectively Linnhaven). Heather's marital status was not an issue in the workers’ compensation proceedings, but she stated during a January 21, 2014 deposition that she was legally married to Roger. However, she explained that the pair were separated and had not divorced because of "money." A deputy workers’ compensation commissioner ultimately determined Heather was permanently disabled as a result of the work injury and awarded Heather workers’ compensation benefits for as long as she remained permanently and totally disabled. The workers’ compensation commissioner delegated a deputy workers’ compensation commissioner with the authority to issue a final agency decision, which subsequently affirmed the prior decision.
On September 9, 2016, Heather died from an overdose of a mix of prescription medications quetiapine (Seroquel ) and zolpidem (Ambien ).1 Roger filed a claim for death benefits as Heather's surviving spouse and sought reimbursement for Heather's burial expenses, which he had paid. Linnhaven asserted that Roger was barred from receiving death benefits under Iowa Code section 85.42(1)(a ), which states: "When it is shown that at the time of the injury the surviving spouse had willfully deserted the deceased without fault of the deceased, then the surviving spouse shall not be considered as dependent in any degree."
In a deposition on April 3, 2018, Roger stated that Heather was listed as his emergency contact at work, the beneficiary of his life insurance policy, and as a driver on his car insurance for two vehicles at the time of her 2012 injury. He described his relationship with Heather as "kind of on and off." According to Roger, Heather would stay with him occasionally, and they continued to see each other "[a]lmost weekly" even though they did not have a sexual relationship.
Roger's former girlfriend, Angela, was deposed on the same day. Angela reported that she had dated Roger from July 2011 until July 2017 and lived with him in a home they rented together from around 2015 until they ended their relationship. She knew Roger was still legally married to Heather and continued to communicate with Heather throughout her relationship with Roger. When asked how often Roger would communicate with Heather, Angela stated, "It didn't come up too much, so I -- I would say maybe like once a month." Angela was not aware of any financial support that Roger may have provided to Heather.
Roger's claim went to hearing on May 15, 2018. Roger's testimony was similar to his deposition testimony. He reiterated that he and Heather separated in January 2011 primarily for financial reasons but remained in contact. When asked whether he recalled providing Heather with financial assistance after her injury, Roger testified that he "would give her money almost weekly, anywhere from 50- to 100-dollars." In contrast, he rarely received financial assistance from Heather.
Heather's son testified next. He lived with Heather at the time of her injury and recalled Heather and Roger maintaining "frequent conversations throughout the week" during that time period. He elaborated that he did not "necessarily know what they talked about" but knew "that they were in contact with each other." He
continued, "And throughout -- after her injury, I had been present a few different times when they had met up with each other." When they met up, Heather's son recalled, "Sometimes it was just a -- have a conversation and check up and see how everybody was doing. Sometimes it was Roger loaning my mom money to help out with bills."
The deputy workers’ compensation commissioner who presided over the hearing became unavailable before issuing a decision, so the workers’ compensation commissioner authorized another deputy to issue a proposed decision. This deputy relied on the record and posthearing briefs in concluding that "Roger had willfully deserted Heather without fault by Heather as of 2011—before her underlying work-related injury"—and was thus not entitled to death benefits under Iowa Code section 85.42(1)(a ). Roger requested a rehearing based on the change in deputy commissioners after his hearing, arguing witness demeanor was a substantial factor in the case. A deputy commissioner acting with authorization from the commissioner granted this request "in an effort to maintain the integrity of the contested case process before the agency."
The deputy who issued the first proposed decision presided over Roger's new hearing in July 2020. No new exhibits were permitted, and only Roger testified, repeating much of what he had already stated in his deposition and the first hearing. The deputy found Roger "to be a generally credible witness" but again determined that Roger was not entitled to death benefits because he willfully deserted Heather. On appeal, a deputy commissioner acting with the commissioner's authorization agreed. The deputy bolstered this final agency decision with the following summary:
The record indicates that Roger and Heather intended to terminate their marriage relationship in January 2011. The record indicates Heather moved out of the house she shared...
To continue reading
Request your trial