candace-h-seaman-by-paul-j-seaman-her-husband-individually-and-as ( 2015 )

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 14-1385
Filed October 14, 2015
CANDACE H. SEAMAN, Deceased,
By PAUL J. SEAMAN, Her Husband,
Individually and as Administrator of
The Estate of CANDACE H. SEAMAN,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
BURGESS HEALTH CENTER and
FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Respondents-Appellees.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Jeanie Vaudt, Judge.
Petitioner appeals from ruling on petition for judicial review affirming the
denial of workers’ compensation benefits. AFFIRMED.
Sarah K. Kleber and Joel D. Vos of Heidman Law Firm, L.L.P., Sioux City,
for appellant.
Paul S. Swinton of Parker & McNeill, P.L.L.C., West Des Moines, for
appellees.
Heard by Potterfield, P.J., McDonald, J., and Miller, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2015).
2
MCDONALD, Judge.
Candace Seaman was employed by Burgess Health Center as a mental
health therapist/social worker. By all accounts, she was a good and dedicated
employee. Her work consisted of treating clients at her office in Burgess’s
facilities and preparing reports of the same. On January 25, 2010, Mrs. Seaman
was injured in a multiple vehicle car accident during the drive from her home in
Sioux City to her workplace in Onawa. She died as a result of injuries sustained
during the accident. Her spouse, individually and on behalf of her estate, sought
workers’ compensation burial expense and death benefits. The agency found
Mrs. Seaman’s death did not arise out of and in the course of her employment
and denied the claim. The district court affirmed the agency’s decision.
I.
Chapter 17A of the Iowa Code governs our review of workers’
compensation cases. See Iowa Code chapter 17A (2013); Mike Brooks, Inc. v.
House, 843 N.W.2d 885, 888 (Iowa 2014). “On appeal, we apply the standards
of chapter 17A to determine whether we reach the same conclusions as the
district court. If we reach the same conclusions, we affirm; otherwise we may
reverse.” Mike Brooks, Inc., 843 N.W.2d at 889.
“In determining the proper standard of review, we must first identify the
nature of the claimed basis for reversal of the Commissioner’s decision.”
Lakeside Casino v. Blue, 743 N.W.2d 169, 173 (Iowa 2007). Whether the
employee’s injury arose out of her employment is a mixed question of law and
fact. See id. “The factual aspect of this decision requires the Commissioner to
3
determine ‘the operative events that [gave] rise to the injury.’” Id. (quoting Meyer
v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213, 218 (Iowa 2006)). “Once the facts are determined,
a legal question remains: ‘Whether the facts, as determined, support a
conclusion that the injury arose out of . . . the employment,’ under our workers’
compensation statute.” Id. (quoting Meyer, 710 N.W.2d at 218) (citations
omitted).
Our court is bound by the factual determinations of the commissioner “if
they are supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when
the record is viewed as a whole.” Mike Brooks, Inc., 843 N.W.2d at 889 (citations
omitted). Substantial evidence is “the quantity and quality of evidence that would
be deemed sufficient by a neutral, detached, and reasonable person, to establish
the fact at issue when the consequences resulting from the establishment of that
fact are understood to be serious and of great importance.” Iowa Code
§ 17A.19(10)(f)(1). “Evidence is not insubstantial merely because different
conclusions may be drawn from the evidence.” Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. v.
Pease, 807 N.W.2d 839, 845 (Iowa 2011). “On appeal, our task ‘is not to
determine whether the evidence supports a different finding; rather, our task is to
determine whether substantial evidence . . . supports the findings actually
made.’” Mike Brooks, Inc., 843 N.W.2d at 889 (quoting Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch.
Dist., 807 N.W.2d at 845).
Our review of the agency’s legal determinations is variable. The
legislature has not clearly vested the interpretation of workers’ compensation
statutes in the discretion of the agency. See Lakeside Casino, 743 N.W.2d at
4
173. We thus afford no deference to the agency’s interpretation of law, and we
are free to substitute our own legal judgment. See id. “On the other hand,
application of the workers’ compensation law to the facts as found by the
Commissioner is clearly vested in the Commissioner. Therefore, we may reverse
the Commissioner’s application of the law to the facts only if it is irrational,
illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.” Id. (citation omitted).
II.
It is the claimant’s burden to prove the injury or death arose out of and in
the course of employment. See Iowa Code § 85.61(7); Waterhouse Water
Conditioning Inc. v. Waterhouse, 561 N.W.2d 55, 57 (Iowa 1997); Great Rivers
Med. Ctr. v. Vickers, 753 N.W.2d 570, 574 (Iowa Ct. App. 2008). We liberally
construe the statutory text to comply with the spirit and the letter of the law, which
is to provide compensation to covered employees for covered injuries. See
Farmers Elevator Co., Kingsley v. Manning, 286 N.W.2d 174, 177 (Iowa 1979);
Golay v. Keister Lumber Co., 175 N.W.2d 385, 387-88 (Iowa 1970) (“The
workmen’s compensation statutes are to be given a broad and liberal
construction to comply with the spirit as well as the letter of the law.”). “An injury
in the course of employment embraces all injuries received while employed in
furthering the employer’s business and injuries received on the employer’s
premises . . . .” Farmers Elevator Co., Kingsley, 286 N.W.2d at 177 (quoting
Bushing v. Iowa Ry. & Light Co., 226 N.W. 719, 723 (Iowa 1929)). There must
be a causal connection between the injury and the course of employment as “[it]
5
relates to the time, place and circumstances of the accident.” Golay, 175 N.W.2d
at 387; see Waterhouse Water Conditioning, Inc., 561 N.W.2d at 57.
Typically, an employee’s work commences when she arrives at her
workplace; the employee is engaged in her own business while traveling to work.
See Pribyl v. Standard Elec. Co., 67 N.W.2d 438, 442 (Iowa 1954). Thus, under
the going-and-coming rule, “absent special circumstances, injuries occurring off
the employer’s premises while the employee is on the way to or from work are
not compensable.” Quaker Oats Co. v. Ciha, 552 N.W.2d 143, 150 (Iowa 1996)
(quotation omitted). The rule is “well established.” Great Rivers Med. Ctr., 753
N.W.2d at 574. There are several exceptions to the going-and-coming rule that
“extend the employer’s premises under certain circumstances.” Quaker Oats
Co., 552 N.W.2d at 151. These exceptions apply “when it would be unduly
restrictive to limit coverage of compensation statutes to the physical perimeters
of the employer’s premises.’” Id. (quotation omitted). The claimant contends
several exceptions apply here.
The claimant first contends Mrs. Seaman was performing a special errand
for Burgess at the time of her car accident. The special errand exception applies
when an employee is injured away from the employer’s premises during a special
errand or mission for their employer. See, e.g., id. at 151-53 (holding the special
errand exception applied when an “on-call” employee was paged to come to the
plant and was in an accident on his way home); Kyle v. Greene High Sch., 226
N.W. 71, 72-73 (Iowa 1929) (finding special errand existed when janitor drove to
school to help the principal turn on the gym lights); but see Bulman v. Sanitary
6
Farm Dairies, 73 N.W.2d 27, 28-30 (holding relief truck driver was not on a
“special mission” when driving home from performing another person’s route and
after drinking); Great Rivers Med. Ctr., 753 N.W.2d at 572, 575-77 (finding no
special mission when nurse was expected to show up for work and was killed on
her way home after being released from work for illness). The relevant inquiry is
“whose business was [the employee] pursuing at the time of the injury?” Quaker
Oats Co., 552 N.W.2d at 151-52 (alteration in original) (quoting Pribyl, 67 N.W.2d
at 442).
The claimant also contends the dual purpose exception applies to Mrs.
Seaman’s accident. The dual purpose exception applies when an employee is
injured off the employer’s premises while making a trip that serves both personal
and business purposes. See Golay, 175 N.W.2d at 388 (affirming workers’
compensation benefits for employee who was on a trip which combined a special
errand of “sufficient substance” for his employer and a non-compensable
purpose); Dorman v. Carroll Cnty., 316 N.W.2d 423, 424-25 (Iowa Ct. App. 1981)
(finding dual purpose doctrine applied when two deputy sheriffs on auxiliary duty
were killed, while driving under the influence to breakfast from their law
enforcement duty). “‘Injury during a trip which serves both a business and a
personal purpose is within the course of employment if the trip involves the
performance of a service for the employer which would have caused the trip to
be taken by someone even if it had not coincided with the personal journey.’”
Golay, 175 N.W.2d at 388 (quoting 1 Larson, The Law of Workmens’
Compensation, 294.3, § 18.00 (1965)).
7
The claimant argues the special errand or dual purpose of Mrs. Seaman’s
travel to work on the morning of her accident was the need to deliver her
completed patient reports to Burgess. In support of the contention, the claimant
argues the reports were time-sensitive and Mrs. Seaman would be subject to
discipline if she failed to deliver the reports. There is no evidence in this record
supporting the contention. The agency found “there [was] no factual basis in this
record to find that claimant was on a special errand at the time of her accident
and death on Interstate 29 while driving from her home to her place of
employment.” The agency found there was not a dual purpose for Mrs.
Seaman’s travel. The agency found the reports were not due that day. The
evidence showed Mrs. Seaman would not have suffered any adverse
consequences if she failed to deliver the reports to her employer that day. The
claimant admits the employer did not require Mrs. Seaman to report to work that
day. The agency’s findings are supported by substantial evidence and its
conclusions are not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. See Lakeside
Casino, 743 N.W.2d at 173.
The claimant contends a third exception to the going and coming rule is
applicable here: the second business situs exception. The exception recognizes
that some travel to and from an employee’s home to the workplace may arise in
the course of employment where the employee’s home serves a secondary
office. See Emmanuel S. Tipon, Annotation, Right to Workers’ Compensation for
Injury Suffered by Worker En Route to or from Worker’s Home Where Home is
Claimed as “Work Situs,” 15 A.L.R. 6th 633 (2006). The agency recognized the
8
exception in Waterhouse v. Waterhouse Water Conditioning, Inc., No. 1039817,
1995 WL 17018379, at *5 (Iowa Workers’ Comp. Comm’n Feb. 23, 1995).
However, the Iowa Supreme Court did not reach the issue when the Waterhouse
case was on appellate review. See Waterhouse Water Conditioning, Inc., 561
N.W.2d at 60. Iowa courts have thus not explicitly adopted the exception. The
exception has been adopted in twenty-two states and the District of Columbia by
legislative action or judicial decision. See generally, Tipon, 15 A.L.R. 6th 633.
For example, in Kahn v. State, 289 N.W.2d 737, 739-40 (Minn. 1980), the
Minnesota Supreme Court awarded workers’ compensation benefits to an
assistant nursing professor who was traveling from work to her home to prepare
for her proposal presentation for a research grant. Kahn, 289 N.W.2d at 739-43.
The professor regularly worked at home on the grant because she was six
months pregnant. Id. at 739. The court concluded the professor’s home was a
work situs by the following criteria:
“When reliance is placed upon the status of the home as a place of
employment generally, instead of or in addition to the existence of a
specific work assignment at the end of the particular homeward trip,
three principal indicia may be looked for: the quantity and regularity
of work performed at home; the continuing presence of work
equipment at home; and special circumstances of the particular
employment that make it necessary and not merely personally
convenient to work at home.”
Id. at 743 (quoting 1 A. Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, § 18.32 (1978)).
The commissioner found Mrs. Seaman’s home was not a second work site
and concluded the second business situs exception was not applicable here.
Mrs. Seaman did some work at home in the evenings to complete her reports.
Her employer did have a telephonic dictation system, which would allow Mrs.
9
Seaman to dictate her notes from anywhere, including her office at Burgess or at
her home. The record is clear, however, that Mrs. Seaman’s home was not a
dedicated office space or secondary office space. Mrs. Seaman never saw
clients at her home. Further, Burgess never specifically directed her to work from
home. The employer did not expect her to work from home and did not provide
compensation for her work at home. The employer did not pay mileage or other
expenses associated with Mrs. Seaman’s commute. Burgess did not provide her
with any equipment for her home. The agency concluded: “Catching up on
occasional work at home or completing tasks at home that could be completed at
the employer’s premises is an insufficient basis to find that claimant had dual
employment premises.” The agency’s findings are supported by substantial
evidence and its conclusions are not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.
See Lakeside Casino, 743 N.W.2d at 173.
III.
Applying the standards of chapter 17A, we reach the same conclusions as
the district court. For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district
court.
AFFIRMED.