Charles R. Coffey vs. Mid Seven Transportation Company and Great West Casualty Company

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 12–0897
Filed May 10, 2013
CHARLES R. COFFEY,
Appellant,
vs.
MID SEVEN TRANSPORTATION COMPANY and
GREAT WEST CASUALTY COMPANY,
Appellees.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Richard G.
Blane, II, Judge.
An employee appeals a district court decision refusing to interpret
an arbitration decision under Iowa Code section 86.42 (2011).
DECISION REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
Charles E. Cutler and Amanda R. Rutherford of Cutler Law Firm,
P.C., West Des Moines, for appellant.
Stephen W. Spencer and Christopher S. Spencer of Peddicord,
Wharton, Spencer, Hook, Barron & Wegman, LLP, West Des Moines, for
appellees.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM.
Charles R. Coffey filed a petition for judgment under Iowa Code
section 86.42 (2011). Therein, Coffey sought enforcement of an
arbitration award he received from the Iowa Workers’ Compensation
Commissioner against his employer, Mid Seven Transportation
Company, and its insurer, Great West Casualty Company. Coffey
specifically asked the district court to determine the amount Mid Seven
and Great West owed Coffey under the arbitration award, in light of
Coffey’s claim that Mid Seven and Great West have failed to pay all of the
medical benefits, mileage reimbursements, and interest due under the
arbitration decision. Complicating the calculation of the amount due is
Mid Seven and Great West’s claim to a credit, under Iowa Code section
85.22(1), against any amount they may owe Coffey due to his third-party
settlements.
After a hearing, the district court issued a decision stating it was
unable to address several issues raised in Coffey’s petition because doing
so required the district court to make factual findings and to engage in
statutory analysis. The court held these tasks are beyond its authority
under section 86.42. The court then issued a judgment, which simply
restated the language in the arbitration decision. Accordingly, the
district court did not answer the issues raised by the parties or
determine the amount still owed to Coffey under the arbitration decision.
Coffey timely filed a notice of appeal.
On today’s date, we filed an opinion entitled, Coffey v. Mid Seven
Transportation Co., ____ N.W.2d ____ (Iowa 2013) (hereinafter Coffey I). In
Coffey I, we remanded the case to the district court for it to remand the
matter to the commissioner with directions to decide the very issues
Coffey raised in his petition for judgment. Therefore, we reverse the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
decision of the district court and remand this case for further
proceedings after the commissioner determines the issues set forth in
Coffey I.
We assess the costs of this action equally between the parties.
DECISION REVERSED AND CASE REMANDED WITH
DIRECTIONS.
This decision shall not be published.

-- 3 of 3 --