Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA No. 1-874 / 11-0784 Filed January 19, 2012

PRAIRIE RIDGE ADDICTION TREATMENT SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SANDRA K. JACKSON and EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD, Respondents-Appellees. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Cerro Gordo County, Colleen D. Weiland, Judge.

Employer appeals from the district court ruling on judicial review affirming the Employment Appeal Board's decision determining a claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. AFFIRMED.

Jackie D. Armstrong of Brown, Kinsey, Funkhouser, and Lander, P.L.C., Mason City, for appellant. Luke Guthrie of Roberts, Stevens & Prendergast, and Jay Roberts, Waterloo, for appellee Sandra Brown. Richard Autry, for appellee Employment Appeal Board.

Considered by Danilson, P.J., and Tabor and Mullins, JJ.

2 DANILSON, P.J. An employer, Prairie Ridge Addiction Treatment Services, appeals from the district court ruling on judicial review affirming an agency decision allowing unemployment benefits to former Prairie Ridge employee, Sandra Jackson. Prairie Ridge contends the agency decision finding that Jackson did not voluntarily quit, but was discharged for no disqualifying reason, is not supported by substantial evidence. Upon our review, we find substantial evidence exists to support the agency's conclusion that Jackson did not voluntarily quit her employment with Prairie Ridge. Accordingly, Jackson cannot be required to

satisfy the conditions of an exception to a disqualification for voluntarily quitting. We affirm the district court. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. Sandra Jackson was employed by Prairie Ridge as a residential program manager from May 1997 through January 2010, when she was discharged. In November 2008, Jackson was involved in a car accident.1 Jackson continued to work until August 2009, when she requested medical leave to undergo surgeries for injuries she sustained in the accident, with an anticipated return to work on October 5, 2009. Prairie Ridge granted Jackson's request for leave from

August 21, 2009, through October 5, 2009. Jackson's surgeries were delayed. On September 25, 2009, she requested an extension of her medical leave, with

It is disputed whether the car accident was work related; however, for purposes of this appeal, whether or not the accident was work related is irrelevant. The issue would be relevant as it may relate to worker's compensation benefits. Iowa Code chap. 85 (2011).

1

3 an anticipated return to work on January 4, 2010. Prairie Ridge granted this request. Jackson's recovery apparently took longer than expected. On

December 2, 2009, Jackson requested another extension of her medical leave, with an anticipated return to work on April 5, 2010. Prairie Ridge responded by letter on December 19, 2009, stating: We received the note from your treating physician that indicates that you will not be able to return to work until April 5, 2010. . . . Our understanding of your doctor's note is that you are requesting additional leave. We are extremely sorry to hear that you are not able to return to work as soon as you originally anticipated. Unfortunately, there are demands on Prairie Ridge that require additional staff in order to meet our obligations. We therefore regretfully have to terminate your employment effective January 5, 2010. Jackson was released by her treating physician to return to work on March 12, 2010. Because Jackson believed she had already been terminated, she did not contact Prairie Ridge when her physician released her for work. Jackson filed a claim for unemployment benefits with Iowa Workforce Development. Following a fact-finding telephone conference, the agency issued a notice allowing unemployment benefits to Jackson. Prairie Ridge appealed and, following a hearing, an administrative law judge affirmed the agency decision allowing benefits. Prairie Ridge sought further review before the

Employment Appeal Board. In a unanimous decision, the Board incorporated the findings of fact and conclusions of law of the administrative law judge and affirmed the decision. Prairie Ridge then sought judicial review and the district court also affirmed. Prairie Ridge now appeals.

4 II. Scope of Review. Our review of unemployment benefits cases is governed by the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, Iowa Code chapter 17A (2009). Lee v.

Employment Appeal Bd., 616 N.W.2d 661, 664 (Iowa 2000). The district court acts in an appellate capacity to correct errors at law on the part of the agency when engaging in judicial review under Iowa Code section 17A.19(10). Holland Bros. Constr. v. Bd. of Tax Review, 611 N.W.2d 495, 499 (Iowa 2000). When we review a district court's judicial review decision, we apply the standards of section 17A.19(10) to determine whether our conclusions are identical to those of the district court. City of Des Moines v. Emp't Appeal Bd., 722 N.W.2d 183, 189 (Iowa 2006). A party challenging agency action bears the burden of demonstrating the action's invalidity and resulting prejudice. Iowa

Code

Download PRAIRIE RIDGE ADDICTION TREATMENT SERVICES, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. SANDRA K.

Iowa Law