Justia Iowa Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court of Iowa was asked to consider whether the Iowa Constitution supports a legislative privilege that protects legislators from compelled production of documents related to legislation. The court concluded that the Iowa Constitution does indeed contain a legislative privilege that protects legislators from compelled document production, particularly in relation to communications with third parties about the legislative process. The case arose from subpoenas served on several Iowa legislators by the League of Latin American Citizens of Iowa (LULAC). LULAC sought discovery of communications related to recent legislative changes to voting procedures. The legislators objected to the subpoenas, arguing they were protected from compelled document production by a legislative privilege under the Iowa Constitution. The court ruled that the privilege extends to communications with third parties where the communications relate directly to the legislative process of considering and enacting legislation. However, the court did not decide whether this legislative privilege was absolute or qualified, as it concluded that the requested documents were not relevant to LULAC's claims and were therefore protected by the legislative privilege, regardless of its extent. The court reversed the district court's judgment granting in part LULAC's motion to compel and remanded with instructions to quash the subpoenas. View "Smith v. Iowa District Court for Polk County" on Justia Law

In Iowa in 2021, a mother of six, Paula Cole, left her five oldest children, ranging in age from 12 to five, asleep at home while she left to go to Walmart for groceries, taking her youngest, an infant, with her. While she was gone, a disagreement arose between two of the children, leading one to leave their apartment building. A neighbor, with whom the family had an open-door policy, helped the children and eventually called 911 due to the disagreement and the child leaving the building. Upon return, Cole was charged with child endangerment. She was convicted and appealed the decision. The court of appeals affirmed the conviction, but Cole sought further review from the Supreme Court of Iowa.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the conviction, holding that Cole did not create a risk that violated section 726.6(1)(a), which defines child endangerment as knowingly acting in a manner that creates a substantial risk to a child's physical, mental, or emotional health or safety. The court concluded that while leaving her children home alone could potentially pose risks, these were not risks created by Cole's decision to go shopping, but rather, they were ordinary risks of everyday life. The court also noted that no evidence suggested the home was unsafe, the older children could help care for the younger ones, and a neighbor was available to assist. The court stressed that not all risks children encounter are created by their parents or caregivers, and life inherently poses risks. Additionally, the court stated that a parent does not create a risk if the risk is part of the background risk of ordinary life. View "State of Iowa v. Cole" on Justia Law

In Iowa, the defendant, Jesse Jon Harbach, was involved in a single-vehicle rollover accident. Based on observations at the scene, an officer applied for a warrant to draw blood from Harbach. The test revealed methamphetamine but no alcohol. Harbach moved to suppress the evidence from the blood draw, arguing that the officer's claims of smelling alcohol and observing Harbach with bloodshot eyes and slurred speech were false. The district court agreed, suppressing the evidence. The state appealed, and the Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the decision, stating that the officer's observations of the defendant's physical state and the smell of alcohol were sufficient to establish probable cause for the search warrant. The court held that the officer's affidavit did not contain intentionally or recklessly false statements and the remaining content established probable cause for the issuance of the warrant. View "State of Iowa v. Harbach" on Justia Law

In this case, decided by the Supreme Court of Iowa, Justin Loew, an employee of Menard, Inc., appealed the district court's decision that denied his claim for workers' compensation benefits. Loew had previously received benefits for a 20% functional impairment to his lower back caused by a work-related injury in 2015, which had been calculated using the industrial method and resulted in a 30% reduction in his earning capacity. In 2018, Loew suffered a second work-related injury to his lumbar spine which increased his functional impairment to 28%. Under the 2017 changes to the workers' compensation law, Loew's compensation for this injury was to be based solely on his functional impairment, since he returned to work at the same or greater wages. However, the workers' compensation commissioner denied Loew any additional benefits for his second injury, reasoning that Menard was entitled to offset the prior payment based on reduced earning capacity against the new claim for functional impairment.The Supreme Court of Iowa disagreed with the commissioner's reasoning and reversed the district court's judgment. The court held that it was incorrect to offset compensation based on loss of earning capacity (from the first injury) against compensation based on functional impairment (from the second injury), as these are incommensurables. Further, the court found that the commissioner erred in interpreting Iowa Code section 85.34(7) to preclude compensation for Loew's new permanent partial disability, as this statute only limits an employer's liability for preexisting disabilities that have already been compensated. Loew was seeking compensation for a new permanent partial disability, not a preexisting one, hence Menard was liable for this new disability. The court remanded the case back to the commissioner for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. View "Loew v. Menard, Inc." on Justia Law

In this case heard by the Supreme Court of Iowa, the defendant, Morgan Marie McMickle, was charged with operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated (OWI). McMickle was stopped by law enforcement after rear-ending another vehicle and leaving the scene. The investigating officer obtained a search warrant to collect a blood sample from McMickle for chemical testing, which showed a blood alcohol content over three times the legal limit. Additionally, McMickle repeatedly asked to speak to her lawyer but was denied. She later filed a motion to suppress evidence, arguing that the use of a search warrant instead of the statutory implied consent procedure violated her rights, and that her right to counsel was violated under Iowa Code section 804.20.The district court granted McMickle's motion, determining that the officer's use of a search warrant was not authorized, that the officer had no statutory authority to collect and test bodily specimens, and that the officer's actions violated McMickle's constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. Additionally, the court found that the officer's refusal of McMickle's requests to speak to her lawyer violated her rights under section 804.20. As a result, the court ordered the suppression of McMickle's statements and the results of the blood test.However, the Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court held that the statutory implied consent procedure was not the exclusive means by which an officer can investigate suspected OWI offenses, and that a law enforcement officer's decision to obtain and execute a search warrant did not violate a suspect's constitutional rights. The court also ruled that although McMickle's rights under section 804.20 were violated, the blood test results should not have been suppressed because they were obtained through a legally issued search warrant, independent of any violation of section 804.20. The case was remanded back to the lower court. View "State of Iowa v. McMickle" on Justia Law

In the state of Iowa, a police officer investigated a suspected case of driving a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The officer pulled over the suspect, Colby Laub, and obtained a search warrant to collect a breath specimen for chemical testing after Laub refused to participate in field sobriety testing. The chemical testing showed that Laub had a blood alcohol content well above the legal limit, and he was subsequently arrested. Laub moved to suppress the evidence of the chemical breath test, as well as statements he had made to the officer, arguing that the officer was required to invoke the statutory implied consent procedure and give him the opportunity to refuse to provide a sample, rather than proceed with a search warrant. The district court agreed with Laub and granted his motion on the grounds that the officer had no statutory authority to obtain a search warrant to collect and test bodily specimens, and that doing so violated Laub's constitutional rights to equal protection and due process. The state appealed this decision.The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court's decision. The court found that the district court erred in holding that the statutory implied consent procedure is the only way a law enforcement officer can obtain a bodily specimen and conduct chemical testing in investigating an OWI case. The court noted that the officer's decision to obtain a search warrant instead of invoking the statutory implied consent procedure did not violate the defendant's rights to equal protection or due process. The court also disagreed with the district court's interpretation of the statute, stating that the statutory implied consent law is not the exclusive means by which a law enforcement officer can obtain a breath sample in an OWI case. Therefore, the court reversed the district court's suppression ruling and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "State of Iowa v. Laub" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court of Iowa examined a case where a defendant, T.J., was ordered to pay restitution after the court had already dismissed and expunged all charges upon completion of a deferred judgment. T.J. had pleaded guilty to criminal mischief and was placed on unsupervised probation as part of the deferred judgment. After successfully completing the terms of the deferred judgment, the court dismissed and expunged the charge. However, later that day, the court set a hearing for restitution and two months later ordered T.J. to pay over $6,000 in restitution to the victim.The main question before the court was whether it had the authority to impose a restitution order after the charges had been dismissed and expunged. The court concluded that it did not. The court found that a dismissal and expungement of a criminal charge after successful completion of probation under a deferred judgment should be treated no differently than other situations where a defendant is discharged from probation. The court stated that if a court unconditionally dismisses all pending charges, there's no need for sentencing or any other action by the court before the judgment becomes final. That finality terminates the court’s jurisdiction in the matter.In this case, the court determined that no statutory or constitutional provision empowered the district court to retain jurisdiction to order restitution after dismissing and expunging criminal charges. Therefore, the court found that it lacked jurisdiction to enter the restitution order after it dismissed and expunged the lone charge in the trial information, and as a result, the order was void. Hence, the writ of certiorari was granted, and the restitution order was vacated. View "State of Iowa v. T.J.W." on Justia Law

In Iowa, a ten-year-old boy was treated at the University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics (UIHC) for a dislodged feeding tube and died the next day. The boy's mother filed administrative tort claims on behalf of the child's estate prior to being appointed as the estate's administrator. The child's parents also individually claimed loss of consortium. The claims were dismissed by the district court, which ruled that the mother lacked authority to file a claim on behalf of the estate prior to her official appointment, and that the parents had not properly filed individual administrative tort claims.The Supreme Court of Iowa held that the district court was correct to dismiss the parents' individual claims as no individual administrative tort claims were filed. However, the court determined the district court had erred in dismissing the estate's claims, arguing that the mother's administrative tort claims were valid despite her not being appointed as the estate's administrator at the time of filing. The court explained that a representative may act to protect an estate's interests before being officially appointed and can ratify pre-appointment acts, granting them the same effect as acts that would occur after appointment. The court also confirmed that the district court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to permit the plaintiffs' new evidence. The case was affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for further proceedings. View "Anderson v. State of Iowa" on Justia Law

In this case, Charlene and Michael Jorgensen sued Dr. Adam Smith, his professional corporation (Adam Smith, M.D., P.C.), and Tri-State Specialists, L.L.P., a clinic that employed Dr. Smith, after Charlene underwent surgeries in 2016 and 2018 that they allege were botched by Dr. Smith. They specifically claim that Tri-State was negligent in retaining Dr. Smith despite knowledge of his unfitness to practice surgery. The Supreme Court of Iowa considered whether the Jorgensens were required to produce a "certificate of merit affidavit" containing an expert’s opinion that the clinic had breached the applicable standard of care by retaining Dr. Smith, under Iowa Code section 147.140 (2018). The court found that this requirement did not apply to the Jorgensens' claim of negligent retention. While Tri-State is considered a "health care provider" as per the definition in the Iowa Code, the language of the statute requiring a certificate of merit refers to negligence in the practice of a profession, occupation, or in patient care. The court concluded that in the context of section 147.140, the term "occupation" does not encompass the activities of entities such as Tri-State. Therefore, the court affirmed the lower court's decision denying Tri-State's motion for summary judgment. View "Jorgensen v. Smith" on Justia Law

Marshall Sandlin, a laborer at Mid American Construction LLC, suffered an injury to his left foot during work. After an initial medical examination conducted by a physician chosen by Mid American's insurance carrier, Grinnell Mutual, Sandlin underwent another independent medical examination (IME) by a physician of his choosing. Sandlin sought reimbursement for the full cost of this second examination, as he believed the first examination's evaluation was too low.The Supreme Court of Iowa had to decide whether an amendment to Iowa Code section 85.39(2) in 2017 limited an employee's reimbursement for an IME to only the cost of the impairment rating or included the full cost of the examination. The court held that the employee is eligible for reimbursement of the reasonable cost of the full examination to determine the impairment rating, not merely the cost of the impairment rating itself. The court interpreted the term "examination" as used in the statute to include review of medical records, physical examination, testing, and written report.However, the court found that the commissioner's analysis of the physician's fee as reasonable was incomplete. While the commissioner considered the physician's written opinion about the reasonableness of his fee, the commissioner failed to analyze the typical fee charged for such an examination in the local area where the examination was conducted, as required by the 2017 amendment to the statute. Consequently, the court remanded the case for further fact-finding on the issue of the reasonableness of the fee based on the typical fee charged in the local area.Thus, the Supreme Court of Iowa affirmed in part and vacated in part the decision of the Court of Appeals and affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded the judgment of the District Court. View "Mid American Construction LLC v. Sandlin" on Justia Law