Terry v. Dorothy
| Citation | 950 N.W.2d 246 |
| Decision Date | 23 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 18-1545,18-1545 |
| Parties | Brian TERRY and Lisa Terry, Appellants, v. Megan DOROTHY, Appellee. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
Sarah M. Baumgartner (argued) of Hedberg & Boulton, P.C., Des Moines, for appellants.
Charles A. Blades (argued) and Valerie A. Foote of Smith Mills Schrock Blades Monthei, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
In this case, we consider whether settlement documents submitted to and approved by the workers’ compensation commissioner released common law claims that the employee brought against a coemployee alleging gross negligence. On a motion for summary judgment, the district court found that the settlement precluded the employee from bringing the gross negligence claim against the coemployee. The employee appealed.
We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The court of appeals reversed. We granted further review. For the reasons expressed below, we affirm the ruling of the district court dismissing the employee's gross negligence claim against the coemployee.
A. Introduction. On October 14, 2015, Brian Terry, an employee of Lutheran Services in Iowa (LSI) was attacked by a client of LSI, allegedly causing serious injuries. Brian filed a workers’ compensation claim against LSI and its workers’ compensation carrier. The parties ultimately resolved the workers’ compensation dispute in a compromise settlement. Two settlement documents were presented to the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner pursuant to Iowa Code section 85.35(3) (2015). One was titled "Compromise Settlement" and the other was titled "Additional Terms of Settlement." The commissioner ultimately approved the settlement.
B. Settlement Documents Presented to Commissioner.
1. Compromise settlement. The compromise settlement declared that "[t]he undersigned parties submit this Compromise Settlement pursuant to Iowa Code [section] 85.35(3)." The compromise settlement further described the dispute as follows:
A dispute exists under the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Law, which the parties seek to resolve by full and final compromise disposition of Claimant's claim for benefits. The subject and nature of the dispute is whether Claimant's alleged October 14, 2015 work injury caused permanent impairment and permanent disability and, if so, the extent of permanent disability.
The compromise settlement contained release language. It provided that "[i]n consideration of this payment, claimant releases and discharges the above employer and insurance carrier from all liability under the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Law for the above compromised claim."
2. Additional terms of settlement. The parties also presented to the commissioner a document entitled "Additional Terms of Settlement." The compromise settlement expressly incorporated the additional terms of settlement.
The additional terms of settlement further provided, "In consideration of this payment, Claimant releases and discharges the Released Parties from all liability, including liability under Iowa Workers’ Compensation Law, for the above injury or injuries ... known or unknown ...."
C. Proceedings Before the District Court.
1. Brian and Lisa Terry petition. On October 12, 2017, Brian and Lisa Terry filed a petition at law in district court. They sought to recover damages from Megan Dorothy, a supervisor of Brian's when he worked at LSI, on a gross negligence theory. Count I of the petition alleged gross negligence when Dorothy put Brian in a one-on-one situation with a client where the likelihood of assault was probable and the situation ultimately resulted in injuries to Terry. Count II of the petition alleged that the traumatic brain injury
suffered by Brian as a result of Dorothy's gross negligence had an adverse impact on the Terrys’ marriage.
2. District court ruling on motion for summary judgment. Dorothy moved for summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the action. In her moving papers, Dorothy asserted alternative grounds, including relying upon "release language that releases plaintiffs’ co-employee gross negligence claim against the defendant Dorothy."
The district court next turned to Lisa Terry's consortium claim. The district court reasoned that in order to bring a consortium claim, there must be liability on the underlying claim that caused injuries to the other spouse. Because the district court dismissed Brian's gross negligence claim, the district court reasoned that Lisa's consortium claim must also fail.
3. Decision of court of appeals. The Terrys appealed. We transferred the case to the court of appeals. The majority in the court of appeals reversed. The majority emphasized that a claim of gross negligence is a common law claim distinct and apart from a workers’ compensation claim. The majority thus reasoned that the statutory settlement before the workers’ compensation commissioner extinguished all statutory claims but a settlement with the workers’ compensation commissioner did not release a common law claim of gross negligence against a coemployee. While the majority recognized there might be a claim for summary judgment based upon the contractual terms of the additional terms of settlement, independent of any approval by the workers’ compensation commissioner, the majority found that contractual theory was not before the court. According to the majority, Dorothy exclusively relied upon the premise that a gross negligence claim against a coemployee was part and parcel of a workers’ compensation claim and that the commissioner's action in approving the settlement extinguished the gross negligence claim. A dissent, however, agreed that a gross negligence claim against a coemployee was not a statutory claim under Iowa Code section 85.20 but reasoned that the contract theory was, in fact, addressed by the district court and sufficiently presented on appeal to provide a basis to affirm the district court.
This case involves review of a district court's order on a motion for summary judgment. A district court's summary judgment ruling is reviewable for correction of errors at law. Bandstra v. Covenant Reformed Church , 913 N.W.2d 19, 36 (Iowa 2018).
A. Summary Judgment Based On Statutory Theory. We first consider whether a gross negligence claim against a coemployee is a statutory claim that is extinguished under Iowa Code section 85.20 when the workers’ compensation commissioner approved settlement of the statutory claim. Dorothy points out that an approved compromise and settlement is a final bar "without qualification or limitation" to all further rights under the workers’ compensation statutes. Bankers Standard Ins. v. Stanley , 661 N.W.2d 178, 181–82 (Iowa 2003). In contrast, the Terrys’ assert that a gross negligence claim against a coemployee is a common law claim that is outside the scope of the workers’ compensation statutes and, as a result, a settlement of Brian Terry's statutory workers’ compensation claims does not extinguish the gross negligence and consortium claims.
On this point, we agree with...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bauer v. Brinkman
...Standard of Review. We review a district court's summary judgment ruling for correction of errors at law. Terry v. Dorothy , 950 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Iowa 2020). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine issue of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of......
- State v. Uranga
-
Putman v. Walther
...Standard of Review."A district court's summary judgment ruling is reviewable for correction of errors at law." Terry v. Dorothy , 950 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Iowa 2020). Summary judgment is appropriate if expert testimony is required to establish general negligence or foundational facts and such t......
-
Putman v. Walther
... ... A ... district court's summary judgment ruling is reviewable ... for correction of errors at law." Terry v ... Dorothy , 950 N.W.2d 246, 249 (Iowa 2020). Summary ... judgment is appropriate if expert testimony is required to ... ...