Danker v. Wilimek, No. 96-1506

CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Iowa
Writing for the CourtANDREASEN
Citation577 N.W.2d 634
Decision Date22 April 1998
Docket NumberNo. 96-1506
PartiesWilliam DANKER, John Danker, and David Danker, Individually and d/b/a Danker Farms, Appellees, v. Brian WILIMEK, Appellant. Brian WILIMEK, Appellant, v. William DANKER, John Danker, and David Danker, Individually and d/b/a Danker Farms, Appellees.

Page 634

577 N.W.2d 634
William DANKER, John Danker, and David Danker, Individually and d/b/a Danker Farms, Appellees,
v.
Brian WILIMEK, Appellant.
Brian WILIMEK, Appellant,
v.
William DANKER, John Danker, and David Danker, Individually and d/b/a Danker Farms, Appellees.
No. 96-1506.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
April 22, 1998.

Page 635

R. Eugene Knopf of Walker, Knopf & Billingsley, Newton, for appellant.

John B. Grier and Merrill C. Swartz of Cartwright, Druker & Ryden, Marshalltown, for appellees.

Considered by HARRIS, P.J., and LARSON, CARTER, LAVORATO, and ANDREASEN, JJ.

ANDREASEN, Justice.

Brian Wilimek appeals from a ruling dismissing his workers' compensation proceeding. Wilimek filed his claim for injuries resulting from his employment by William Danker, John Danker, and David Danker (collectively Danker). Danker moved the commissioner to dismiss, based on Wilimek's filing of a tort action. See Iowa Code § 87.21 (1991) (providing alternatives for situations where an employer does not have workers' compensation insurance). The commissioner declined to dismiss and the matter was submitted. The deputy commissioner awarded workers' compensation benefits to Wilimek. Both he and Danker appealed the decision to the industrial commissioner and then to the district court for judicial review. On review the district court ruled the industrial commissioner should have dismissed the claim. Because we find the claim should not have been dismissed, we reverse and remand to the district court for further proceedings.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

The Dankers are partners in a family farm partnership known as Danker Farms. Danker Farms grows seed corn, field corn, and soybeans. On September 17, 1989, Wilimek was operating a truck used to transport seed corn to a processing plant. While the corn was being unloaded, Wilimek's left upper extremity became caught in a conveyor belt used to facilitate the unloading. Wilimek suffered a severe injury and incurred substantial medical expenses.

At the time of the accident, Danker Farms did not have workers' compensation liability insurance. On January 9, 1991, Wilimek filed a tort action against Danker in Tama County district court. The following September Wilimek filed this workers' compensation petition in arbitration with the industrial commissioner. Danker moved to dismiss the claim, asserting the action warranted dismissal because Wilimek had elected to proceed with his tort action in district court.

A hearing was held before the deputy commissioner and on December 9, 1994, a proposed agency decision was filed. Both parties appealed the decision to the industrial commissioner. Nine issues were raised on appeal. They included questions whether Wilimek was an employee of Danker Farms, whether the claim was exempted from workers' compensation laws by reason of the agriculture exception, and whether the filing of the district court action preempted the workers' compensation claim. On November 29, 1995, the industrial commissioner filed an appeal decision addressing all nine issues. Both parties sought judicial review.

The district court found it necessary only to decide one issue: dismissal of the proceedings, pursuant to Iowa Code section 87.21, on the ground Wilimek had elected to pursue his tort action in district court. Wilimek appeals.

II. Scope of Review.

Our...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • Welch v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., No. 10–2029.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 12, 2011
    ...sought to be remedied, seeking a result that will advance, rather than defeat, the statute's purpose.’ ” Id. (quoting Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998)).III. Analysis. A. Iowa's Implied Consent Law. Enacted in 1963, Iowa's implied consent law was intended to “control alcoho......
  • Gallipo v. City of Rutland, No. 00-217.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • December 21, 2001
    ...outset, we emphasize that defendants' argument is inconsistent with the wording of § 622, the exclusivity statute. See Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998) (issue controlled by statute, and doctrine of election of remedies is not involved). Instead of denying a court remedy to......
  • Johnston v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div., No. 2-1127 / 12-1294
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • February 27, 2013
    ...will advance, rather than defeat, the statute's purpose." State v. Schultz, 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999) (quoting Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998)). To hold OWI convictions under a substantially similar municipal ordinance9 do not constitute a prior conviction for purpose......
  • Johnston v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., No. 12–1294.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • February 27, 2013
    ...will advance, rather than defeat, the statute's purpose.” State v. Schultz, 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999) (quoting Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998)). To hold OWI convictions under a substantially similar municipal ordinance 9 do not constitute a prior conviction for purpos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
10 cases
  • Welch v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., No. 10–2029.
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
    • August 12, 2011
    ...sought to be remedied, seeking a result that will advance, rather than defeat, the statute's purpose.’ ” Id. (quoting Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998)).III. Analysis. A. Iowa's Implied Consent Law. Enacted in 1963, Iowa's implied consent law was intended to “control alcoho......
  • Gallipo v. City of Rutland, No. 00-217.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • December 21, 2001
    ...outset, we emphasize that defendants' argument is inconsistent with the wording of § 622, the exclusivity statute. See Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998) (issue controlled by statute, and doctrine of election of remedies is not involved). Instead of denying a court remedy to......
  • Johnston v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., Motor Vehicle Div., No. 2-1127 / 12-1294
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • February 27, 2013
    ...will advance, rather than defeat, the statute's purpose." State v. Schultz, 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999) (quoting Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998)). To hold OWI convictions under a substantially similar municipal ordinance9 do not constitute a prior conviction for purpose......
  • Johnston v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., No. 12–1294.
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Iowa
    • February 27, 2013
    ...will advance, rather than defeat, the statute's purpose.” State v. Schultz, 604 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1999) (quoting Danker v. Wilimek, 577 N.W.2d 634, 636 (Iowa 1998)). To hold OWI convictions under a substantially similar municipal ordinance 9 do not constitute a prior conviction for purpos......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT