Opinion
No. 3-546 / 02-2043
Filed October 29, 2003
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Gregory A. Hulse, Judge.
Petitioner appeals from the district court's ruling on judicial review affirming the chief deputy workers' compensation commissioner's award. AFFIRMED.
Paul J. McAndrew, Jr., Coralville, for appellant.
Steven A. Berger of Wehr, Berger, Lane Stevens, Davenport, for appellee Felcamp.
Stephen W. Spencer of Peddicord, Wharton, Spencer Hook, P.C., Des Moines, for appellees Bulkmatic Transport and Great West Casualty.
Heard by Mahan, P.J., Eisenhauer, JJ, and Hendrickson, S.J.
Senior Judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2003).
Is correction of errors at law the scope of review to be applied to all facets of the Iowa Workers' Compensation statute? The petitioner urges this court to adopt a de novo review of the workers' compensation commissioner's exercise of equitable apportionment powers. We decline to do so.
The sole issue presented is whether the district court erred in applying the errors at law scope of review to its judicial review of the agency's decision regarding the equitable apportionment of Douglas Oswald's weekly death benefits. The deputy divided the benefits among his surviving spouse, Terese Oswald, and his two dependent children from a former marriage. Terese contends a de novo standard should be applied by the courts on judicial review of the agency's equitable apportionment under Iowa Code section 85.43 (2001). She argues the de novo standard is proper because, unlike other matters, equitable apportionment is not within the agency's expertise. Terese claims equitable apportionment, although decided initially by an administrative agency, is essentially a decision in equity.
Review in equity cases shall be de novo. Iowa R.App.P. 6.4. In all other cases, our scope of review is for corrections of errors at law. Id. Judicial review of a final agency action is governed by application of standards set forth in Iowa Code section 17A.19. Under section 17A.19(10)(f), the court shall reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief from agency action if the agency action was based upon a determination of fact clearly vested by a provision of law in the discretion of the agency that is not supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when viewed as a whole. This, generally, is an errors at law standard.
Terese contends that because section 85.43 is the sole equitable power granted to the commissioner, it is outside the confines of review governed by section 17A.19. However, section 17A.19(10)(f) applies to determinations of facts vested by a provision of the law in the discretion of the agency. As an administrative agency, the commissioner has only such authority as is conferred by statute or is necessarily inferred from the power expressly granted. Zomer v. West River Farms, Inc., 666 N.W.2d 130, 132 (Iowa 2003). Section 85.43 entrusts to the workers' compensation commissioner the ability to order an equitable apportionment of compensation payments. Equitable apportionment is clearly a provision of the law in the discretion of the agency. The statute does not state equitable apportionment decisions are to be tried in equity, or that such matters are to be reviewed de novo. In absence of such express statutory language, the provisions of section 17A.19(1)(f) apply.
Terese also contends the district court erred in applying the correction of errors at law scope of review in lieu of de novo review because the deputy's action was inconsistent with agency practice or precedent, and is grounds for review under section 17A.19(10)(h). She asserts section 17A.19(10)(h) mandates no particular standard of review, and the legislature would not have designated a separate subsection had it intended to use the same standard as section 17A.19(10)(f). However, our supreme court has made it clear that despite the amendments to chapter 17A that elaborated on the standards for judicial review of agency action, the court reviews an agency decision for corrections of errors at law. Midwest Automotive III, L.L.C. v. Iowa Dept. of Transp., 646 N.W.2d 417, 422 (Iowa 2002).
Because the district court properly applied the errors at law standard to its judicial review of the deputy's action, we affirm.