Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc., No. 67785
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Writing for the Court | HARRIS; All Justices concur, except CARTER, J. and REYNOLDSON, C.J., who dissent and McCORMICK; CARTER; REYNOLDSON |
| Citation | 331 N.W.2d 98 |
| Parties | Jeffrey L. HARNED and Kathy L. Harned, Appellants, v. FARMLAND FOODS, INC., and Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 16 March 1983 |
| Docket Number | No. 67785 |
Page 98
v.
FARMLAND FOODS, INC., and Aetna Life & Casualty Insurance Company, Appellees.
Page 99
James R. Van Dyke, Carroll, for appellants.
J.D. Hilmes of Duncan, Jones, Riley & Finley, Des Moines, for appellees.
Considered en banc.
HARRIS, Justice.
The parties here dispute even the nature of their dispute. Defendants, employer and insurance company, see the suit as a workers' compensation case. Plaintiffs think the suit merely arose as an aftermath of a workers' compensation case. Either way we think the trial court was correct in holding the dispute belonged before the industrial commissioner. We affirm a ruling which sustained defendants' motion to dismiss.
In filing their motion to dismiss defendants, for the purposes of the motion, assume plaintiffs' allegations of fact. Ruling of such a motion is not discretionary; it rests on legal grounds which we review on error. Berger v. General United Group, Inc., 268 N.W.2d 630, 633 (Iowa 1978).
Plaintiff Jeffrey Harned suffered a back injury on February 11, 1980, while working for defendant employer Farmland Foods, Inc. On February 19, 1980, while hospitalized from the injury, he asked Farmland and defendant Aetna Life and Casualty Insurance Company, Farmland's insurer, that he be given chiropractic care.
Plaintiffs state that when Jeffrey requested the chiropractic care defendants told him it was their policy not to pay for any chiropractic care with workers' compensation insurance for any of Farmland's employees. Both the employer and insurer refused to provide chiropractic care. This suit resulted from the refusal.
Plaintiffs allege they were injured by the denial of chiropractic care. They allege the denial caused him unnecessary surgery, pain, and disability beyond that suffered in his original injury.
The petition is in several counts: negligence; breach of a third-party beneficiary contract; conspiracy; extreme and outrageous conduct causing severe emotional distress; punitive damages; and loss of consortium. Plaintiffs insist this claim (denial of chiropractic care) does not constitute an injury arising out of and in the course of employment as defined by the workers' compensation law. (Iowa Code ch. 85) They maintain the claim is for a separate and distinct injury not covered by workers' compensation. The trial court disagreed. Citing policy reasons it held the case belonged before the industrial commissioner rather than the court.
Under Iowa Code § 85.3 employers of Iowa residents are within the jurisdiction of the industrial commissioner. The provisions of the act are intended to be "the exclusive and only rights and remedies of [an] employee ... at common law or otherwise ... against ... his or her employer...." Iowa Code § 85.20. Section 85.22 provides some relief for an employee who is injured by others.
The act also spells out the duties of an employer in providing medical services to injured employees. The services are expected to be reasonable but the employer may choose the type of reasonable care to be provided. § 85.27.
The fourth paragraph of section 85.27 is especially significant and revealing. It specifies that an employee who is not satisfied with the type of care being provided by an employer may apply to the industrial commissioner for an order directing alternative care.
The office of industrial commissioner is established under Iowa Code ch. 86. Section 86.8 specifies the commissioner's general
Page 100
duties. Section 86.11 requires employers to report all employees' injuries to the industrial commissioner. Under Iowa Administrative Code 500-4.1(3), a dispute over benefits arising under § 85.27 is deemed a contested case proceeding by the industrial commissioner. Appeal within the agency is provided by section 86.24, and a party may seek judicial review of the commissioner's decision under section 86.26."The primary purpose of the workers' compensation statute is to benefit the worker and his or her dependents, insofar as statutory requirements permit." McSpadden v. Big Ben Coal Co., 288 N.W.2d 181, 188 (Iowa 1980). Accord, Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Shook, 313 N.W.2d 503, 506 (Iowa 1981) ("Thus the statute is to be interpreted...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, No. 83SC316
...for unreasonable or vexatious delay remedies insurer's malicious deception or outrageous conduct); Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 1983) (statutory procedure for resolving dispute over treatment constitutes exclusive remedy); Hormann v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 236 K......
-
Spencer v. Annett Holdings, Inc., No. 4:11–cv–598.
...a finding of first-party bad faith where a party breached a workers' compensation settlement agreement); Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 98, 101 (Iowa 1983) (holding that where a party is dissatisfied with care, the proper forum is the workers' compensation commission); Good v. T......
-
Thornton v. Am. Interstate Ins. Co., No. 15-1032
...care provided by employer was required to exhaust administrative remedies with commissioner); Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc. , 331 N.W.2d 98, 101 (Iowa 1983) (affirming dismissal of tort action arising from employer's failure to provide chiropractic care to employee based on exclusive juris......
-
Baker v. Bridgestone, No. 14–2062.
...to sue the employer for damages for any injury covered by the act[.]1 Larson § 1.01, at 1-2 to -3; accord Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 98, 100 (Iowa 1983) ("The legislature has plainly tried ... to protect employers from facing tort suits brought by injured employees. It shoul......
-
Travelers Ins. Co. v. Savio, No. 83SC316
...for unreasonable or vexatious delay remedies insurer's malicious deception or outrageous conduct); Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 98 (Iowa 1983) (statutory procedure for resolving dispute over treatment constitutes exclusive remedy); Hormann v. New Hampshire Insurance Co., 236 K......
-
Spencer v. Annett Holdings, Inc., No. 4:11–cv–598.
...a finding of first-party bad faith where a party breached a workers' compensation settlement agreement); Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 98, 101 (Iowa 1983) (holding that where a party is dissatisfied with care, the proper forum is the workers' compensation commission); Good v. T......
-
Thornton v. Am. Interstate Ins. Co., No. 15-1032
...care provided by employer was required to exhaust administrative remedies with commissioner); Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc. , 331 N.W.2d 98, 101 (Iowa 1983) (affirming dismissal of tort action arising from employer's failure to provide chiropractic care to employee based on exclusive juris......
-
Baker v. Bridgestone, No. 14–2062.
...to sue the employer for damages for any injury covered by the act[.]1 Larson § 1.01, at 1-2 to -3; accord Harned v. Farmland Foods, Inc., 331 N.W.2d 98, 100 (Iowa 1983) ("The legislature has plainly tried ... to protect employers from facing tort suits brought by injured employees. It shoul......