Preview:

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 68 / 04-1910 Filed December 8, 2006 HARVEY'S CASINO, Appellant, vs. BEVERLY ISENHOUR, Appellee. AMERISTAR CASINOS COUNCIL BLUFFS, INC. and GAB ROBINS, Appellants, vs. AMANDA A. DAVIS, Appellee. AMERISTAR CASINOS COUNCIL BLUFFS, INC. and GAB ROBINS, Appellants, vs. HELEN FALANGA, Appellee.

On review from the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County, Gordon C. Abel, Judge.

Two riverboat casinos appeal from judgment awarding workers' compensation benefits to three claimants, and court of appeals reversed.

2 DECISION OF COURT OF APPEALS AFFIRMED, JUDGMENT OF DISTRICT COURT REVERSED, CASE REMANDED.

William D. Gilner and Scott A. Lautenbaugh of Nolan, Olson, Hansen & Lautenbaugh, LLP, Omaha, Nebraska, for appellant Harvey's Casino. John B. Morrow and Tiernan T. Siems of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., Omaha, Nebraska, and Michael J. Obradovich, Omaha, Nebraska, for appellants Ameristar Casinos Council Bluffs, Inc. and Gab Robins.

Jacob J. Peters of Peters Law Firm, P.C., Council Bluffs, for appellees.

3 LARSON, Justice. Three workers' compensation claimants, Amanda Davis, Helen Falanga, and Beverly Isenhour, claimed benefits for injuries sustained while employed on riverboat casinos in Council Bluffs. The Workers'

Compensation Commissioner ruled that the commission had subject matter jurisdiction to award benefits, and the district court agreed. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the claimants were "seamen" working on vessels for which the Federal Jones Act provided exclusive benefits. We affirm the court of appeals decision, reverse the district court, and remand. I. Facts and Prior Proceedings. Amanda Davis and Helen Falanga were injured while employed on the Ameristar Casino Riverboat in Council Bluffs as a slot machine attendant and "banker," respectively. Beverly Isenhour was a floor host on Harvey's Casino Riverboat in Council Bluffs. All three claimed injuries sustained in their employment and filed workers' compensation claims under Iowa Code chapter 85 (2001). The three claims were eventually consolidated, and the district court, on judicial review, affirmed the Workers' Compensation Commissioner's ruling that the commission had jurisdiction to award benefits because the claims were not preempted by the Jones Act. The basis for the district court's ruling was that the claimants were not seamen and the riverboat casinos were not vessels as required for coverage under the Jones Act. The court of appeals reversed, ruling that the Workers' Compensation Commission lacked jurisdiction to award benefits, based largely on a Supreme Court case decided after the district court's ruling-- Stewart v. Dutra Construction Co., 543 U.S. 481, 125 S. Ct. 1118, 160 L. Ed. 2d 932 (2005). On this further review, the claimants argue that the court of appeals erred in relying on Stewart because that case is distinguishable.

4 II. Standard of Review. Our review of agency action is for correction of errors at law. Gates v. John Deere Ottumwa Works, 587 N.W.2d 471, 474 (Iowa 1998). Review is governed by Iowa Code section 17A.19. This court is bound by the factual findings made by the agency if those findings enjoy substantial support on the record made before the agency. Id. This court will liberally construe Iowa's workers' compensation statutes for the benefit of the injured employee. Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Shook, 313 N.W.2d 503, 505-06 (Iowa 1981). III. Resolution. Under Iowa Code section 85.1(6), if an injured worker is covered by a compensation statute enacted by Congress, the worker is not covered by Iowa's workers' compensation law. In this case, Harvey's and Ameristar argue that the injured employees are covered by the Federal Jones Act, which provides in relevant part: Any seaman who shall suffer personal injury in the course of his employment may, at his election, maintain an action for damages at law, with the right of trial by jury, and in such action all statutes of the United States modifying or extending the common-law right or remedy in cases of personal injury to railway employees shall apply. 46 App. U.S.C.

Download HARVEY'S CASINO vs. BEVERLY ISENHOUR vs. AMANDA A. DAVIS.pdf

Iowa Law