Frederick v. Men's Reformatory
Decision Date | 17 January 1973 |
Docket Number | No. 55336,55336 |
Citation | 203 N.W.2d 797 |
Parties | Theodore FREDERICK, Appellant, v. The MEN'S REFORMATORY at Anamosa, Iowa and State of Iowa, Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
P. D. Furlong, Sioux City, for appellant.
Richard C. Turner, Atty. Gen., and Richard Winders, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellees.
Heard before MOORE, C.J., and MASON, RAWLINGS, REYNOLDSON, and McCORMICK, JJ.
This is an appeal from denial of workmen's compensation. It turns upon whether prisoners of the State injured while working in prison industries are covered by the Iowa Workmen's Compensation Act.
Plaintiff was serving a ten-year sentence for forgery in the Men's Reformatory at Anamosa. On May 20, 1969, he was injured while working as a punch press operator in the license plate factory of the prison. Four fingers of his right hand were crushed in the press and were later amputated. The State denied his claim for workmen's compensation solely on the basis prisoners employed in prison industries are not employees of the State. Plaintiff applied for arbitration. A deputy industrial commissioner found coverage and allowed benefits. The industrial commissioner affirmed the deputy's decision, the State appealed to district court, and trial court reversed the industrial commissioner's decision. We affirm.
I. Although the State has raised no question about it, we do not wish to be understood as approving plaintiff's designation of 'The Men's Reformatory at Anamosa, Iowa' as defendant employer in this case. We are unable to find any statutory basis for treating the reformatory as an entity subject to suit. See rule 9, Rules of Civil Procedure; Loth, Iowa Rules of Civil Procedure, § 1.13 (Second Ed.). Moreover, the State is the putative employer. § 85.61(1), The Code.
II. It is conceded that plaintiff is ineligible for workmen's compensation unless he is an employee of the State. Section 85.61(2) of the workmen's compensation statute defines 'employee' as '* * * a person who has entered into the employment of, or works under contract of service, express or implied, or apprenticeship, for an employer * * *.' In previous discussion of this definition we said:
'There is no legal distinction between the phrases in section 85.61(2), 'a person who has entered into the employment of (an employer)' and '(who) works under contract of service, express or implied'. In other words, employment implies the required contract on the part of the employer to hire and on the part of the employee to perform service. (citations)
Henderson v. Jennie Edmundson Hospital, 178 N.W.2d 429, 431 (Iowa 1970).
The relationship between the State and its prisoners is the antithesis of voluntary employment. All imprisonment is at hard labor. § 246.31, The Code. The record shows all prisoners are required to work unless prevented by disciplinary processes. The State does not employ prisoners at will, is not obligated to pay wages to them, and obviously does not intend an employer-employee relationship. Likewise, prisoners do not enter the reformatory in order to find work.
The primary purpose of prison employment is 'inculcation or the reactivation of attitudes, skills, and habit patterns which will be conducive to prisoner rehabilitation.' § 246.18, The Code. Nominal remuneration is ordinarily paid from prison industry funds as permitted by § 246.27, The Code. Plaintiff received eight cents per hour. This small reward is an inducement to cooperation with the corrections program. It is not paid as wages. Similarly, a prisoner who 'performs in a faithful manner the duties assigned to him' earns the right to reduction of his sentence. § 246.39, The Code.
We conclude that the terms of the Iowa Workmen's Compensation Act are not broad enough to include prisoners working in prison industries. This is in accordance with the general rule:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Rhode Island Council 94, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. State
...716 P.2d 1106 (Colo.1986); Schraner v. State Department of Correction, 135 Ind.App. 504, 189 N.E.2d 119 (1963); Frederick v. Men's Reformatory, 203 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa 1973); Commonwealth Department of Education, Division of Surplus Properties v. Smith, 759 S.W.2d 56 (Ky.1988); Porter v. Depar......
-
Reid v. New York State Dept. of Correctional Services
...Shain v. Idaho State Penitentiary, 77 Idaho 292, 291 P.2d 870; Miller v. City of Boise, 70 Idaho 137, 212 P.2d 654; Frederick v. Men's Reformatory, 203 N.W.2d 797 (Iowa); Jones v. Houston Fire & Cas. Ins. Co., 134 So.2d 377 (La.App.); Tackett v. Lagrange Penitentiary, 524 S.W.2d 468 (Ky.); ......
-
Renda v. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n
...reveals our legislature did not intend to include prison inmates as employees under Iowa Code chapter 216. See Frederick v. Men's Reformatory, 203 N.W.2d 797, 798 (Iowa 1973) (holding inmates are not “employees” under the workers' compensation statute). The majority totally ignores the comm......
-
Haworth v. State, 6110
...relationship. "The relationship between the State and its prisoners is the antithesis of voluntary employment." Frederick v. Men's Reformatory, 203 N.W.2d 797, 798 (Iowa 1973). Where the prisoner has no choice between working and not working, which appears to have been true in the present c......