Stark Construction and Charles Stark v. John Lauterwasser
15-1786
Iowa Ct. App.Oct 26, 2016Background
- In Sept. 2009 John Lauterwasser cut his hand working with a saw and filed a workers’ compensation claim against Stark Construction in 2010.
- A deputy commissioner denied benefits, finding Lauterwasser a subcontractor; the commissioner reversed on intra-agency appeal and awarded benefits.
- Stark sought judicial review; the district court reversed the agency, concluding the agency’s employee finding was illogical. This court reversed the district court and remanded for consideration of remaining issues.
- On remand the district court found the only remaining issue was whether Lauterwasser gave timely notice under Iowa Code § 85.23 and remanded to the agency for a ruling on Stark’s lack-of-notice defense.
- Lauterwasser appealed the remand, arguing Stark waived the notice defense by failing to obtain an agency ruling or file for rehearing; Stark challenged the timeliness of the appeal based on an alleged improper rule 1.904(2) motion.
- The Court of Appeals concluded the 1.904(2) motion was proper (tolling the appeal deadline) but held the district court erred in remanding because the agency had failed to rule on the defense and Stark did not preserve the issue by requesting rehearing before seeking judicial review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Lauterwasser) | Defendant's Argument (Stark) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the appeal timely? | The 1.904(2) motion was proper and tolled the appeal period. | The 1.904(2) motion was improper, so the appeal is untimely. | 1.904(2) motion was proper; appeal timely. |
| Did the district court have authority to remand to the agency for a ruling on an issue the agency did not decide? | The court should have adjudicated and affirmed the agency because Stark failed to preserve the notice issue. | The remand was proper because the agency never ruled on the notice defense and the district court lacked authority to decide it without an agency ruling. | The district court erred: remand was improper; issue waived for judicial review due to Stark’s failure to seek rehearing. |
| Was Stark’s lack-of-notice defense preserved for judicial review? | Stark failed to preserve the issue by not obtaining an agency ruling or seeking rehearing, so it waived the defense. | Stark had raised the defense before the deputy and commissioner, so it should be considered. | Waived: a party must obtain an agency ruling or use available rehearing procedures to preserve issues for judicial review. |
| Proper basis for remand under Iowa Code § 17A.19(7)? | Remand not supported because no new evidence was being presented—only a ruling was requested. | District court can remand for agency to rule on unaddressed issues. | § 17A.19(7) authorizes remand for additional evidence, not simply to request an agency ruling on an already-presented issue; remand was unsupported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hills Bank & Trust Co. v. Converse, 772 N.W.2d 764 (Iowa 2009) (untimely notice of appeal deprives appellate court of jurisdiction)
- In re Marriage of Okland, 699 N.W.2d 260 (Iowa 2005) (an improper or untimely rule 1.904(2) motion does not extend appeal period)
- Baur v. Baur Farms, Inc., 832 N.W.2d 663 (Iowa 2013) (distinguishing proper rule 1.904(2) motions that request rulings overlooked by the court)
- Explore Info. Servs. v. Ct. Info. Sys., 636 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 2001) (rule 1.904(2) not tolled when motion merely rehashes prior legal issues)
- Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532 (Iowa 2002) (issues not raised by the trial court and not raised in a proper posttrial motion cannot be entertained on appeal)
- KFC Corp. v. Iowa Dep’t of Revenue, 792 N.W.2d 308 (Iowa 2010) (issues not addressed by an agency and not preserved by rehearing are waived on judicial review)
- Office of Consumer Advocate v. Iowa State Commerce Comm’n, 465 N.W.2d 280 (Iowa 1991) (judicial review is limited to questions considered by the agency)