For summaries from opinions prior to August, 2018, view PDF versions here.
Hormel Foods Corp. v. Tamayo-Perez
Hormel Foods Corp., Plaintiff-Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Yunior Tamayo-Perez, Defendant-Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Attorney for Appellant/Cross-Appellee
Abigail A. Wenninghoff (until withdrawal)
Alison E. Stewart
Jordan R. Gehlhaar
Attorney for Appellee/Cross-Appellant
Jennifer M. Zupp
Court of Appeals
Court of Appeals Opinion
Opinion Number:
Date Published:
Summary
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Robert B. Hanson, Judge. AFFIRMED ON APPEAL; REVERSED ON CROSS-APPEAL. Heard by Tabor, P.J., and Badding and Chicchelly, JJ. Opinion by Badding, J. (18 pages)
Parties appeal and cross-appeal a district court ruling on judicial review of action of the workers’ compensation commission. On appeal, the employer claims the district court erred in (1) concluding the agency had “subject matter jurisdiction and statutory authority to hear and rule” on the fifth application for alternate medical care, (2) determining judicial estoppel applied to prevent the denial of liability for treatment, and (3) declining to issue a stay and entering judgment on the agency’s order for alternate care. On cross-appeal, the claimant challenges the court’s conclusion that the agency could not consider the sixth alternate-care application. OPINION HOLDS: We affirm the district court on its conclusions that the agency had jurisdiction and authority to consider the fifth petition for alternate medical care and that the agency properly applied the concept of judicial estoppel. As a result, we conclude the court’s denial of the employer’s motion for stay and its entry of judgment on the alternate-care decision did not prejudice its substantial rights. But we reverse the court’s conclusion that the agency did not have jurisdiction to hear the sixth alternate-care application alleging abandonment and its vacation of that decision.
