Amended September 30, 2015 Iowa Insurance Institute, Iowa Defense Counsel Association, Iowa Self-insurers' Association, Property Casualty Insurers Association of America, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, and Iowa Association of Business and Industry v. Core Group of the Iowa Association for Justice Christopher J. Godfrey, Workers' Compensation Commissioner, Division of...
2015 Iowa Sup. LEXIS 68
Iowa2015Background
- The Workers’ Compensation Core Group petitioned the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner for a declaratory order asking whether Iowa Code § 85.27(2) requires employers/insurers to produce surveillance videos, photos, and reports concerning a claimant’s physical or mental condition upon request and before the claimant’s deposition.
- The commissioner ruled § 85.27(2) applies to surveillance materials and waives the work-product protection (except for attorney mental impressions), requiring pre-deposition production on request.
- The Iowa Insurance Institute and other employer/insurer groups intervened and challenged the commissioner’s order in district court; the district court and court of appeals affirmed the commissioner.
- The Iowa Supreme Court granted further review to decide (1) whether the commissioner properly issued the declaratory ruling, and (2) whether § 85.27(2) covers surveillance/work-product materials and mandates pre-deposition disclosure.
- The Supreme Court held the commissioner had authority to issue the declaratory order but concluded § 85.27(2) is directed at health-care-related records (e.g., medical provider records) and does not abolish or displace work-product protections for litigation surveillance; it vacated the court of appeals decision, reversed the district court, and remanded to the commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Core Group) | Defendant's Argument (Institute/intervenors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Was the commissioner authorized to rule on the declaratory petition? | Commissioner should decide; declaratory process appropriate to resolve issue. | Commissioner should have declined (lack of necessary parties/other procedures better). | Commissioner acted within discretion and § 17A.9 did not bar ruling. |
| 2. Does § 85.27(2) mean “all information concerning physical or mental condition” includes surveillance prepared for litigation? | “All information” is broad and includes surveillance and related reports. | Text and context limit § 85.27(2) to health-care records; it was not meant to override discovery protections like work product. | Ambiguous text resolved in context: § 85.27(2) is aimed at health-care/provider records, not post-claim litigation work product. |
| 3. Does § 85.27(2) waive the work-product doctrine (and require production of surveillance pre-deposition)? | Statutory waiver of “any privilege” covers work product and requires production upon request. | Work-product is an immunity/protection distinct from privilege and § 85.27(2) does not mention or reach it; employers/insurers may withhold surveillance until after deposition. | § 85.27(2) does not abrogate work-product protections; it does not give the commissioner authority to require production of materials otherwise protected as work product. |
| 4. Timing: if surveillance is not covered by § 85.27(2), must it still be produced pre-deposition? | (Core Group) Early disclosure promotes nonadversarial, efficient resolution; impeachment value still exists after disclosure. | (Institute) Pre-deposition disclosure undermines impeachment value and benefits claimants; withholding until after deposition preserves truth-finding. | Court declines to decide general discovery/timing rules here; leaves timing and related civil-procedure questions for cases squarely presenting them. |
Key Cases Cited
- Squealer Feeds v. Pickering, 530 N.W.2d 678 (Iowa 1995) (describing the absolute protection for attorney mental impressions under work-product doctrine)
- Wells Dairy, Inc. v. Am. Indus. Refrigeration, Inc., 690 N.W.2d 38 (Iowa 2004) (adopting the Wells standard for assessing whether materials were prepared in anticipation of litigation)
- Keefe v. Bernard, 774 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 2009) (explaining Iowa R. Civ. P. 1.503(3) and the two-tiered work-product framework)
- Wegner v. Cliff Viessman, Inc., 153 F.R.D. 154 (N.D. Iowa 1994) (treating surveillance materials as work product that may be discoverable upon a proper showing)