*1 (1985-86) (discussing Drake L.Rev. 1 rea- underlying preservation error doc-
sons
trine). error,
Finding no we affirm. Dulek, Legal Corp. Susan Services AFFIRMED. Iowa, City, appellant. Dewey, William C. Whitten and H. Blair Moines, appellee Des Employment Ap- peal Bd. by LARSON, P.J.,
Considered SCHULTZ, CARTER, LAVORATO and ANDREASEN, JJ. WILLS, Margaret Appellant, E. ANDREASEN, Justice. Board, v. Employment Ames
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD (Iowa 1989), we held that the Keokuk Convalescent involuntarily separated Inc., Appellees. their unemploy- compensation ment otherwise Supreme qualified to rejected Court of Iowa. receive them. We analysis which disqualifies involuntarily Oct. 1989. separated employees unless the As Nov. Corrected leaving is attributable to the
Here the Appeal Board con- cluded that pregnancy because of upon a doctor’s advice that she should not twenty-five pounds. lift more than Be- cause she not leave for a cause which employer, could be attributed to her ben- efits was denied. The district court and appeals the court affirmed. We believe decision Ames compels different result. We vacate the court of decision, decision, reverse the district court pro- and remand to the opinion. ceedings consistent with our (Cen- The Keokuk Convalescent Center ter) employed Margaret Wills as a nurse’s 1987; early aid. became the Center asked her to obtain doctor’s working. release to continue On March gave the Center a subject lease to work to a pound lifting restriction. The Center ter- employment relationship minated the policy providing its of not work to lifting with a restriction. adopted Center had 1986 be- cause of relations result- strained *2 138 If the qualification from benefits. facts for made prior from accommodations employee the was absent show ... that
pregnant then, a inter- involuntarily, unemployment a Wills filed statute, the words “at- pretation of the representa- compensation. A Job Service simply have employer” the tributable to finding that Wills her claim on tive denied application. no preg- of to because her unable work Bd., Appeal Employment 439 Ames v. appeal, hearing officer found nancy. (Iowa 1989). general, N.W.2d dis- to but then that Wills was able discontinuing “voluntary quit” the means on that she voluntar- qualified her long- employee no because the advice, relying on ily quit upon her doctor's relationship to in the er desires remain in Area Residential Care v. our decision the Iowa Ad- employee Service, Department Iowa To establish min.Code 345-4.25 1982). (Iowa Employment The voluntary quit requires that an findings incorporated the Appeal Board In re See employment. terminate intend to hearing fact and conclusions law the Johnson, (S.D.1983). 337 N.W.2d hearing the officer’s officer and affirmed district court and the decision. Both the No evidence exists to substantial on decisions in court of relied our support agency’s the conclusion that Wills v. Iowa Area Residential Care Butts job. hearing, At her the Service, 328 N.W.2d Department quit job. she not her testified that 1983), (Iowa affirming in presented She testified that when she action. release, nursing the director of longer she no at the told her could work govern principles Well-established witness, testimony The of another Center. novo, view. review is not de but is Pihl, supported Albert her statements. On law. Sal at limited to correction errors behalf of the Katherine Scott ad Bd., Employment v. lis mitted, technically guess you agen- The “We— say quit job, have to she did not her cy’s findings of if fact bind us substantial but we not at time have Id. Evidence is supports evidence them. —what light-lifting jobs for we call staff.” She substantial when a reasonable mind could repudiated only thus evidence of a vol accept adequate it as reach the same quit presented untary at the Id. The findings. legal agency’s conclu- —her stating, record of event “She us; [Wills] sions do not bind we are free to correct quits at time.” Id. misapplications of the law. If no one disputes drawn the facts and inferences operates The found the Center Id. them, only from issues of law remain. weight under a that precluded restrictions from Unemployed individuals otherwise ment. The that also found eligible may unemployment benefits be able work: disqualified for benefits under Iowa Code The claimant’s restriction and 96.5(1). provides section The statute that experience effectively limits her work disqualified individual shall be “[a]n However, it employment. is not shown has left work benefits ... individual [i]f ability gener- that the claimant’s voluntarily good without cause attributable ally as is so limited to establish employer....” the individual’s general claimant is unable to work as a 96.5(1). We have stated: principle. consequence, it is found 96.5(1) disqualification is ex- section is able “voluntary” pressly couched terms of circumstances, leaving. The to the Under similar other courts words “attributable statute, appear have held that a who is employer,” which for work is entitled to identify serve to those instances which and available voluntarily a claimant from em- absent may as a result of an
ployment
nevertheless
avoid dis-
is terminated
maximum,
employer’s
pound weight-lifting
she
policy preventing
could
voluntary.
working
departure
not
patients.
is
longer
no
lift
—her
e.g., Harwood
Sec.
employer
policy, dating
This
Comm’n,
66-67,
*3
64,
Ariz.App.
P.2d
1986,
provided
which
247,
1192, 1194-95,
251-52;
51 A.L.R.3d
employed.
restrictions could not be
Commonwealth, Unemployment
Smith v.
reason
the rule was that
it had
Review,
Compensation
557,
Bd.
Pa.
among
caused tension
the staff when all
See also
154 A.2d
patient-lifting duties were shifted to other
Security
and Public
Social
C.J.S.
Welfare
(1977
Supp.1989);
&
76 Am.Jur.2d
§
case,
deputy
this
the claims
Unemployment Compensation
(1975
concluded
64§
was,
Annot.,
employment
that Wills
Termination of
Supp.1989);
&
Pregnancy as
rule,
Because
not able and
for work
available
and
Affecting Right
Unemployment
Com- denied benefits.
of that
On review
deci-
7[a],
pensation
51 A.L.R.3d
266-69
sion,
officer affirmed the deni-
(1973
Supp.1989).
&
ground—
al
benefits —but on a different
voluntarily quit.
that she
I
holding
case
conflict
believe
does not
prior opinions which address
volun-
that this was erroneous and
hear-
tary separation
due
unsupported
officer’s conclusion was
e.g.,
Dep’t
Butts v. Iowa
pregnancy.
by
hand,
the evidence.
the other
Serv.,
(Iowa 1983);
We remand to even contend that she was proceedings. On compliance remand the shall duties in with the proceed conformity opinion with this er’s rules. period during shall determine the which I would affirm the and the dis- eligibility requirements
Wills satisfied the deny trict court and benefits. section 96.4 and was thus chapter. benefits under the OF DECISION COURT OF APPEALS
VACATED; OF DISTRICT JUDGMENT
COURT REVERSED AND REMANDED. LARSON, All except Justices concur re the MARRIAGE OF Ruth Helen J., dissents. who Raymond VINE Donald Vine. LARSON, (dissenting). Justice Upon the Petition of I believe agency properly denied ben- claimant, wrong efits albeit for the Vine, Appellee, Ruth Helen reason, and should I agree be affirmed. concerning And majority with the that she did not voluntar- Raymond Vine, ily quit, agree Appellant. but I do not that she was Donald fired. The deputy claims concluded that Wills was not able and available Appeals Court of of Iowa. 96.4(3), Iowa Code because she could not believe that Aug. correct. She worked for convalescent home, large part job of her
lifting patients. Because Wills was re- by
stricted her doctor to