Polk County v. Steinbach

• Decision Date: 18 September 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-1805,84-1805
• Citation: 374 N.W.2d 250
• Parties: POLK COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee, v. Lavern STEINBACH, Appellant.
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

Page 250

374 N.W.2d 250

POLK COUNTY, Iowa, Appellee, v. Lavern STEINBACH, Appellant.

No. 84-1805.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Sept. 18, 1985.

As Amended on Denial of Rehearing Oct. 11, 1985.

Steven C. Jayne, Des Moines, for appellant.

James A. Smith, Co. Atty., and Charles R. Montgomery, Asst. Co. Atty., for appellee.

Lee H. Gaudineer of Austin & Gaudineer, Des Moines, for amicus curiae Iowa State Ass'n of Counties.

Considered by REYNOLDSON, C.J., and McCORMICK, LARSON, CARTER, and WOLLE, JJ.

McCORMICK, Justice.

We hold that a person who participates in a county work program to repay the county for general relief assistance may be an employee of the county for workers' compensation purposes. Respondent Lavern Steinbach was injured while working to repay Polk County for a $75 rent voucher. The county denied he was an employee, and he initiated claim proceedings. The industrial commissioner awarded him benefits, and the county petitioned for judicial review. The district court reversed the commissioner, and Steinbach appealed. We reverse and remand.

Principles governing our review are summarized in Rouse v. State, 369 N.W.2d 811, 812-15 (Iowa 1985). The crucial issue is whether Steinbach proved he was a county employee at the time of his injury. To do so it was necessary for him to establish that he had a contract of hire express or implied, with the county. Id. at 814. The determination is ordinarily one of fact. Id. at 813. We are bound in our review by findings of fact of the commissioner that are supported by substantial evidence.

The parties stipulated to the relevant events. Steinbach applied to the Polk County Department of Social Services for general relief assistance on December 17, 1980. Pursuant to authority under Iowa Code section 252.27 (1979), the county conditioned relief on a promise by the recipient to repay the relief either in cash or by working it off at the prevailing wage rate in a county work program. Steinbach received rent vouchers of $75 each for two separate two week periods. In order to repay the county for the first voucher, he executed an agreement to work in the county's work experience program at the minimum wage for seven days and one and one-fourth hours.

The work coordinator assigned Steinbach to the county emergency housing unit, located on leased premises in Des Moines. Steinbach reported to the county employee who managed the premises. The manager supplied him with a bucket of water, sponge and other cleaning materials and instructed him to wash walls and woodwork in a stairwell. The manager had authority to remove Steinbach for poor performance or if another person were endangered by Steinbach's performance. Approximately one-half hour after starting work, Steinbach fell over a bannister to the floor below and was injured.

This court has addressed the eligibility of a relief worker for workers' compensation benefits in three cases. In Hoover v. Independent School District, 220 Iowa 1364, 264 N.W. 611 (1936), the court discussed the issue in dicta, asserting that an employer and employee relationship has uniformly been held not to exist in situations where the public body provides relief assistance whether the recipient works or not. The workers in Hoover were not relief workers but were denied workers' compensation from the school district because they were employees of the federal civil works administration merely on loan to the district. In Oswalt v. Lucas County, 222 Iowa 1099, 270 N.W. 847 (1937), a relief worker was denied workers' compensation on the ground the agreed facts did not show he was employed by the county. Relief was paid from federal and state funds, and the work program was administered and supervised by a state agency. The court noted that relief workers were denied workers' compensation benefits in some jurisdictions when the worker had the right to obtain relief without working for it. Id. at 1107, 270 N.W. at 851 (" 'He would receive the relief whether he worked or not.' "). In Arnold v. State, 233 Iowa 1, 6 N.W.2d 113 (1943), the Hoover and Oswalt cases were distinguished and a relief worker was declared eligible for workers' compensation. When he applied to the county for relief, the worker was found to be employable and was given a choice of working for the county at a specified price to pay for grocery orders or of not receiving them. He agreed to work and while working on the courthouse roof was fatally injured....