UPDATES & ANALYSIS

12.11

Iowa Supreme Court to hear arguments in 8 cases Dec. 13 and 14

by Rox Laird | December 11, 2023

The Iowa Supreme Court will hear arguments in eight cases Dec. 13 and 14. Three other cases will be submitted to the Court without oral argument. Go to On Brief’s “Cases in the Pipeline” page to read briefs filed in these cases. Following are brief summaries of the December cases.

 

Selden v. Des Moines Area Community College

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 13, 9 a.m.

Question: Did a district court err in post-trial rulings regarding a jury verdict against Des Moines Area Community College in a sex-based wage discrimination case?

[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorneys Randall Armentrout, Katie Graham, and Haley Hermanson represent Des Moines Area Community College.]

Des Moines Area Community College (“DMACC”) appeals from a Polk County jury verdict in favor of plaintiff-appellee Sandra Selden on her claims under the Iowa Civil Rights Act for sex-based wage discrimination based on the pay differential between Selden and a male coworker, and for retaliation based on DMACC’s decision to hire another candidate for an open supervisor position. In post-trial rulings, the judge tripled back-pay damages attributable to her wage-discrimination claim for a total back-pay award of $460,444.78, removed $730,375 in emotional-distress damages, and denied DMACC’s motion on all other grounds. On appeal, DMACC argues, among other things, the trial court made a number of errors including that DMACC’s evidence that Selden’s pay differential is explained by factors other than sex as a matter of law under Iowa Code section 216.6A. Selden cross-appeals, arguing the district court erred in vacating the jury’s emotional-distress award for sex-based wage discrimination.

An amicus curiae brief in support of plaintiff-defendant DMACC was filed by 14 Iowa community colleges and the Iowa Association of Business and Industry.

 

Chicoine, et al., v. Wellmark

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 13, 9 a.m.

Question: Should a trial court have certified a class action by chiropractors suing Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa for violations of antitrust laws?

[Disclosure: Nyemaster Goode attorney Benjamin P. Roach represents Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Iowa and Wellmark Health Plan of Iowa in this case.]

Bradley A. Chicoine and two other doctors of chiropractic appeal a ruling by the Polk County District Court denying their motion for certification of a class that includes Iowa chiropractors who have provided chiropractic services to those insured by employers who self-fund insurance plans that are serviced by Wellmark. The chiropractors sued Wellmark in an antitrust action alleging the health insurer illegally restrained competition by entering into contracts with employers who self-fund insurance plans whereby the employers could pay reimbursement rates to medical providers based on those providers’ network agreements with Wellmark. The plaintiff-appellants argue on appeal that the district court’s denial of class-action certification on their antitrust claim was erroneously based on a misinterpretation of the plaintiffs’ theory of class-wide injury.

 

Bankers Trust Co. v. City of Des Moines

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 13, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Can the City of Des Moines be held liable for damages in a sidewalk trip-and-fall case?

Bankers Trust Co. appeals the Polk County District Court’s denial of the bank’s motion for summary judgment on its claim for contribution by the City for damages paid to a plaintiff injured in a fall on a city sidewalk abutting the bank’s property. Bankers Trust argues on appeal that under Iowa Code section 364.12(2) the City is responsible for sidewalk maintenance. It urges the Court to overrule its 2014 decision in Madden v. City of Iowa City, which held that “consistent with the common law rule, it has generally been held that a statute or ordinance that merely imposes a duty to maintain a sidewalk in good repair does not thrust liability for damages onto the abutting property owner.”

 

State v. Miller

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 13, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Was posting a video of a sex act two months after the act was committed evidence of sexual gratification for purposes of requiring the perpetrator to register as a sex offender?

Kadin Miller seeks further review of a July 13 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming his conviction and sentence in Boone County District Court for first-degree harassment for posting on the internet a video he recorded of him engaging in a sex act with a female, when the video was posted without the woman’s consent. On appeal, Miller argued the district court erred in finding Miller’s internet posting was “sexually motivated,” which required that he register as a sex offender as provided by Iowa Code section 708.7(5). Miller argues he was motivated by revenge against the woman, not sexual gratification, when he posted the video. Miller argues in his application for further review the Court of Appeals erred in presuming sexual gratification he received during the sex act carried over to the posting of the pornographic video online two months later.

 

P.M. Lattner Manufacturing and Accident Fund General Insurance v. Rife

Will be submitted to the Court Dec. 13 without oral argument.

Question: Should an employer receive credit for benefits awarded for a worker’s previous workplace injury in calculating compensation benefits for a new injury?

Michael Rife seeks further review of a June 7 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling affirming in part and reversing in part a Polk County District Court ruling affirming the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s decision regarding Rife’s workplace shoulder injury. The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court, holding that Rife was not entitled to reimbursement for the cost of an independent medical examination while also holding the trial court ruled correctly on the question of crediting Lattner and its insurance carrier for workers’ compensation benefits paid for Rife’s previous workplace injury. Rife urges the Iowa Supreme Court to reverse the Court of Appeals on the question of credit for the previous injury.

 

Kirkwood Institute v. Iowa Auditor of State Rob Sand

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 14, 9 a.m.

Question: Did the State Auditor violate the Iowa Open Records Act by failing to release email messages between his staff and two journalists?

The Kirkwood Institute appeals the Polk County District Court’s grant of summary judgment to State Auditor Rob Sand and denial of summary judgment to Kirkwood for its claim that the State Auditor illegally withheld from Kirkwood ten batches of email messages between Sand’s staff and two journalists. Kirkwood argues on appeal the district court erred in holding that one batch of emails was properly withheld by the State Auditor as they are exempt from disclosure under the Iowa Public Records Act, and that the remaining emails are protected from disclosure because they were received during the course of an audit or examination as provided under Iowa Code section 11.42. Kirkwood also argues the trial court erred in holding the State Auditor did not violate the Open Records Act by delaying for 216 days the release to Kirkwood of some of the emails it had sought. Kirkwood argues the State Auditor’s “unreasonable” delay constitutes a violation of the Open Records Act, citing the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Belin v. Reynolds, which was issued after the district court ruled and which, according to Kirkwood, must be applied in this case.

 

Vaudt v. Wells Fargo Bank

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 14, 9 a.m.

Question: Was an adverse possession of real estate claim wrongly dismissed based on a missed filing deadline under a statute of limitations?

David A. Vaudt and Jeanie K. Vaudt appeal the Polk County District Court’s dismissal of their claim for boundary by acquiescence and adverse possession. The Vaudts claim possession of a portion of property they have maintained for more than 10 years. A subsequent land survey by the neighboring property owner revealed the disputed portion of property lies within the neighbor’s property boundaries. The district court dismissed the Vaught’s claim based on a one-year statute of limitations under Iowa Code section 614.14(5)(b) for actions that arise “by reason of a transfer of an interest in real estate by a trustee or purported trustee.” The Vaughts argue their adverse possession claim did not arise out of a transfer of the neighbors’ property by trustee’s warranty deed recorded in 2021. Rather, their claim existed years before the neighbors purchased their property because the Vaudts have held title to the disputed property for more than two decades through adverse possession. The Vaughts also argue that the Iowa Supreme Court’s 2000 decision in Heer v. Thola, which the district court relied on in its decision, was wrongly decided and should be overturned.

 

State v. Jackson

Will be submitted to the Court Dec. 14 without oral argument.

Questions: Did a trial court wrongly allow introduction of a blood test obtained with an invalid warrant application? And should introduction of the defendant’s medical records have been barred at trial by a state patient-privacy statute?

David Jackson seeks further review of an Aug. 30 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming his conviction by a Polk County jury for vehicular homicide by operating while intoxicated (OWI), reckless driving, leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death, and operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent. Jackson argues the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the district court’s decision to allow introduction of a toxicology report, which he argues was obtained with a search warrant application containing false statements. And he challenges the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that Jackson waived his right to assert physician-patient privilege over his hospital records under Iowa Code section 622.10(1), which protects the confidentiality of patient medical records.

 

State v. Slaughter

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 14, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did a casino patron commit fraud by falsely claiming to win a $4,000 jackpot so her companion would not be taxed for debts owed to the government?

The state seeks further review of a divided Aug. 9 Iowa Court of Appeals ruling reversing Sydney Leiann Slaughter’s conviction by a Black Hawk County jury for making a false claim of winning a casino jackpot under Iowa Code section 99F.15(4)(h). The charge arose from Slaughter’s claim that she made the bet on a slot machine that resulted in a $4,000 jackpot. The State alleges her boyfriend actually made the winning wager and that Slaughter made the false claim so her boyfriend would not forfeit the winnings to debts owed for back child support and fines owed to Linn County. The Court of Appeals, in a ruling joined by two members of the three-judge panel, agreed with Slaughter that the State lacked sufficient evidence that she knew it was improper to claim someone else’s winnings, and that she knew about the debts owed by her boyfriend. The third member of the panel dissented, saying circumstantial evidence in this case was sufficient support for the conviction.

 

Anderson v. State

Scheduled for oral argument Dec. 14, 1:30 p.m.

Question: Did parents bringing a medical malpractice claim against the State fail to exhaust administrative remedies under the Tort Claims Act?

Alexandria and Terry Anderson appeal a Polk County District Court ruling dismissing their medical malpractice claim against the State following the death of their disabled son at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics where he was treated for a dislodged feeding tube. The Andersons argue on appeal the district court erred in holding that the Andersons failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Iowa Tort Claims Act before bringing their medical malpractice claim in district court.

 

Mid American Construction and Grinnell Mutual v. Sandlin

Will be submitted to the Court Dec. 14 without oral argument.

Question: Was a $2,020 charge for a workers’ compensation medical examination reasonable?

Marshall Sandlin seeks further review of a February 22 Iowa Court of Appeals decision affirming in part and reversing in part a Polk County District Court ruling upholding the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s decision regarding coverage of the cost of Sandlin’s independent medical examination for a workplace injury. The Court of Appeals agreed with the commissioner’s determination that Mid American Construction, Sandlin’s employer, and Grinnell Mutual, Mid American’s insurer, chose the physician who performed Sandlin’s examination. But the Court of Appeals reversed the award of $2,020 reimbursing the physician for the independent medical examination. Sandlin argues the Court of Appeals erred in denying reimbursement for a full examination and instead limiting reimbursement to the fee associated with a limited examination to determine an “impairment rating.”

Tags: Iowa Supreme Court 2023-24