IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 

No. 152 / 06–1012 

Filed June 27, 2008 

GRINNELL COLLEGE and the CINCINNATI INSURANCE COMPANIES, 

 Appellants, 

vs. 

RON OSBORN, 

 Appellee. 

 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Scott D. 

Rosenberg, Judge. 

 Employer appeals entry of judgment on workers’ compensation 

award and denial of interlocutory motion for stay. AFFIRMED.

 David L. Jenkins of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, P.C., 

Des Moines, for appellants. 

 Paul J. McAndrew, Jr. of Paul McAndrew Law Firm, Coralville, for 

appellee. 

 
 2 

CADY, Justice.

 In this appeal, we review a decision by the district court to enter 

judgment on an award of benefits by the worker’s compensation 

commissioner during the pendency of a petition for judicial review and to 

deny a motion to stay execution or enforcement of the award. On our 

review, we affirm the decision of the district court. 

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

 Following a hearing before a deputy industrial commissioner, the 

worker’s compensation commissioner on review determined Ron Osborn 

sustained injuries arising out of and in the course of his employment 

with Grinnell College. The commissioner entered a decision awarding 

Osborn weekly benefits based on a permanent total disability. Grinnell 

College and its insurer filed a petition for judicial review.1 During the 

pendency of judicial review, Osborn requested the district court to enter 

judgment on the worker’s compensation decision. Grinnell College 

resisted Osborn’s request and contemporaneously filed a motion with the 

district court to stay enforcement of the commissioner’s decision. The 

district court entered judgment on the award and denied the motion to 

stay. The judgment was in the amount of $141,589.50, representing 

accrued benefits, medical expenses, and interest. Grinnell College 

appealed from the judgment entry and the denial of the stay. 

 During the pendency of this appeal, the district court proceeded to 

determine the merits of the petition for judicial review. It ultimately 

affirmed the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner, and 

Grinnell College separately appealed from that decision. The district 

 1Grinnell College was insured by Cincinnati Insurance Company, who is also a 

party to this appeal. All references to Grinnell College will implicitly refer to its insurer 

as well. 
 3 

court then stayed execution or enforcement of the judgment during the 

pendency of the appeal after Grinnell College filed a supersedeas bond. 

 In this appeal, Grinnell College claims the district court erred in 

converting the workers’ compensation decision into a judgment during 

the pendency of judicial review and in failing to stay enforcement of the 

commissioner’s decision. Osborn claims the final judgment 

subsequently entered on judicial review and the stay entered after the 

appeal of the judicial-review decision render the issues presented in this 

appeal moot. Thus, before we consider the merits of the issues raised by 

Grinnell College, we must decide if they are no longer justiciable. 

II. Standard of Review. 

 We review the district court’s decision to enter judgment on the 

workers’ compensation award for errors at law. Iowa R. App. P. 6.4. 

Iowa Code section 17A.19(5) “plainly makes the issuance of [a] stay 

discretionary.” Teleconnect Co. v. Iowa State Commerce Comm’n, 366 

N.W.2d 511, 513 (Iowa 1985). For that reason, review of the district 

court’s decision whether to stay agency action under section 17A.19(5) is 

for abuse of discretion. Id.; see also Glowacki v. State Bd. of Med. 

Exam’rs, 501 N.W.2d 539, 541 (Iowa 1993). 

III. Justiciability. 

 The two intertwined issues raised by Grinnell College in this appeal 

are whether the district court erred in entering judgment after a petition 

for judicial review had been filed and whether the district court abused 

its discretion by refusing to grant a stay of execution or enforcement of 

the commissioner’s award of benefits during the pendency of the judicial 

review. Ultimately, these two issues require us to consider the 

interaction of Iowa Code sections 17A.19(5) and 86.42. Before we 
 4 

address these two sections, however, we must consider the preliminary 

question of whether the issues presented are justiciable. 

 “One familiar principle of judicial restraint is that courts do not 

decide cases when the underlying controversy is moot.” Rhiner v. State, 

703 N.W.2d 174, 176 (Iowa 2005); see also, e.g., Lalla v. Gilroy, 369 

N.W.2d 431, 434 (Iowa 1985) (“A live dispute must ordinarily exist before 

a court will engage in an interpretation of the law.”). “ ‘[O]ur test of 

mootness is whether an opinion would be of force or effect in the 

underlying controversy.’ ” Iowa Mut. Ins. Co. v. McCarthy, 572 N.W.2d 

537, 540 (Iowa 1997) (quoting Wengert v. Branstad, 474 N.W.2d 576, 578 

(Iowa 1991)). “In other words, will our decision in this case ‘have any 

practical legal effect upon an existing controversy?’ ” Id. (quoting 5 

Am. Jur. 2d Appellate Review § 642, at 321 (1995)). 

 In this case, the district court ultimately affirmed the workers’ 

compensation commissioner on judicial review and entered a stay of 

enforcement of the decision during the pendency of the appeal. See Iowa 

R. App. P. 6.7. Thus, the prior actions of the district court, which are the 

subject of this appeal, no longer have any direct consequences on the 

parties. Accordingly, the issues raised by Grinnell College are moot. 

 Nevertheless, we will consider moot issues on appeal under certain 

circumstances. State v. Hernandez-Lopez, 639 N.W.2d 226, 235 (Iowa 

2002). In determining whether or not we should review a moot action, 

we consider four factors: 

(1) the private or public nature of the issue; (2) the 

desirability of an authoritative adjudication to guide public 

officials in their future conduct; (3) the likelihood of the 

recurrence of the issue; and (4) the likelihood the issue will 

recur yet evade appellate review. 

Id. at 234. 
 5 

 While this appeal is a purely private action, the issues presented 

currently lack authoritative adjudication. Additionally, the broader 

question of how the statutory procedure to transform an award of 

benefits following a decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner 

into a judgment interacts with the statutory procedure to request a stay 

during the pendency of an action for judicial review of a decision of the 

workers’ compensation commissioner is substantial and will likely 

reoccur. Considering the respective timelines of the appellate and 

judicial review processes, employers will likely continue to appeal adverse 

judicial review decisions and post the required supersedeas bond before 

our appellate courts can decide the separate appeal of a denial of a 

section 17A.19(5) stay or the grant of a section 86.42 request to enter 

judgment. Enforcement will be stayed under our rules of appellate 

procedure, mooting any appeal of a district court’s decision under either 

section 17A.19(5) or section 86.42 and ensuring the question will 

continue to evade review. Consequently, the issues presented by this 

appeal fall neatly under the exception to our mootness doctrine, and we 

consider them now.2 

IV. Stay of Judgment During Judicial Review. 

 Grinnell College asserts the district court erred in entering 

judgment and in denying its motion to stay the decision of the workers’ 

 2We also recognize that Grinnell College appeals not only from the judgment 

entered on the award by the commissioner, but also from the denial of the stay. Osborn 

makes no claim that Grinnell College may not appeal from the judgment, but a question 

is raised whether the separate decision to deny the stay was an interlocutory decision 

and not appealable as a matter of right. Nevertheless, we may grant permission for an 

interlocutory appeal under rule of appellate procedure 6.2(1). Having determined we 

should consider the appeal under the exception to the mootness doctrine, we also 

conclude we should now consider the stay issue in the interest of sound and effective 

administration of justice. Buechel v. Five Star Quality Care, Inc., 745 N.W.2d 732, 735–

36 (Iowa 2008). 
 6 

compensation commissioner during judicial review. It claims the actions 

by the district court not only defeated its statutory right to judicial 

review, but also violated its due process rights under the state and 

federal constitutions. The basis of the claims by Grinnell College is 

derived from its argument that it is unfair to be required to pay an award 

of benefits by the workers’ compensation commissioner before the 

district court has had an opportunity to review the award on judicial 

review. 

 We acknowledge that the execution of a judgment entered in a 

workers’ compensation proceeding under section 86.42 during the 

pendency of judicial review can present many subsequent problems for 

the parties if the district court ultimately reverses the decision of the 

commissioner. The specific problem identified by Grinnell College in this 

case is an employer may not be able to recover the payment made on the 

judgment in the event the employer is successful in reversing or 

modifying the decision on judicial review. Grinnell College asserts this 

problem could ultimately undermine the very objective and purpose of 

judicial review in workers’ compensation proceedings. 

 We begin our analysis of the issue by considering a fundamental 

proposition of workers’ compensation law. The Workers’ Compensation 

Act was enacted nearly a century ago to benefit workers and compensate 

them for industrial disabilities. Pribyl v. Standard Elec. Co., 246 Iowa 

333, 343, 67 N.W.2d 438, 444 (1954). The process sought to establish 

an administrative tribunal that would provide for the prompt and 

efficient determination and award of compensation to injured workers. 

Nash v. Citizens Coal Co., 224 Iowa 1088, 1092, 277 N.W. 728, 730 

(1938). Yet, in doing so, our legislature recognized an award of benefits 

to a worker by such a tribunal was not a personal judgment that would 
 7 

allow a worker to collect the award when not voluntarily paid by the 

employer. Consequently, a summary method was established under the 

statute to convert an award by the workers’ compensation commissioner 

into a district court judgment or decree. See Elk River Coal & Lumber Co. 

v. Funk, 222 Iowa 1222, 1235, 271 N.W. 204, 211 (1937). This summary 

method was part of the original act and is now found in Iowa Code 

section 86.42. See 1913 Iowa Acts ch. 147, § 34. 

 Section 86.42 requires the district court to enter judgment on any 

order or decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner as long as, 

among other conditions not relevant to this case, no timely petition for 

judicial review has been filed or no stay has been entered pursuant to 

section 17A.19(5) when a petition for judicial review has been timely 

filed. Once entered, the judgment “has the same effect and in all 

proceedings in relation thereto is the same as though rendered in a suit 

duly heard and determined by the court.” Iowa Code § 86.42 (2005). 

 We have interpreted section 86.42 to provide “a summary method 

. . . for converting the decision of the commissioner into the form of a 

judgment or decree by transcribing the proceedings to the district court.” 

Elk River Coal & Lumber Co., 222 Iowa at 1235, 271 N.W. at 211. The 

transcription facilitates “collection by legal process of the amount already 

legally ascertained to be due.” Rathamel v. Harvey, 679 N.W.2d 626, 629 

(Iowa 2004). Consequently, the court’s role in the process is ministerial 

and is limited to entering a judgment in conformance with the award. Id.

at 628. This statutory scheme reveals that the district court did not err 

in converting the decision into a judgment in this case. No stay had been 

entered at the time the request was made, and the relevant conditions to 

enter the judgment had been satisfied. 
 8 

 While our workers’ compensation statute allows the district court 

to convert an award of benefits into a judgment, it also provides for 

judicial review of decisions by the worker’s compensation commissioner. 

Iowa Code § 86.26. This process is implemented by a separate legislative 

scheme available for all administrative agency action. Id. (referencing 

Iowa Code ch. 17A). Under the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act, a 

process exists for a petitioner to obtain a stay of execution or 

enforcement of the agency action during the pendency of judicial review. 

Id. § 17A.19(5). As applied to judicial review of decisions by the workers’ 

compensation commissioner, only the district court is authorized to 

grant or deny stays once a petition for judicial review has been filed. See

id. § 86.26. The parties are not permitted to seek a stay from the 

workers’ compensation commissioner once a petition for judicial review 

has been filed. Id. 

 Under section 17A.19(5), four factors are required to be considered 

before entering a stay. This approach means a petition for judicial review 

does not automatically stay the action of the workers’ compensation 

commissioner. See id. § 17A.19(5) (“The filing of the petition for review 

does not itself stay execution or enforcement of any agency action.”). 

Likewise, an award of benefits by the commissioner can be converted into 

a judgment under section 86.42 even when a petition for judicial review 

has been filed as long as the district court has not entered a stay. Thus, 

the collection of workers’ compensation benefits and the pursuit of 

judicial review coexist under the statute, and judicial review does not 

itself stay the right to collect an award unless the district court 

affirmatively concludes otherwise. Yet, the present compatibility between 

these statutes has not always existed. 
 9 

 When the Iowa Administrative Procedure Act was enacted in 1974, 

the legislature also amended section 86.42. 1974 Iowa Acts ch. 1090, 

§ 53. The amendments provided that a judgment converted from an 

award by the workers’ compensation commissioner had the force of a 

district court judgment only “in the absence of a petition for judicial 

review of the decision of the industrial commissioner.” Id. Thus, section 

17A.19(5) rejected the concept that judicial review automatically stayed 

enforcement of a judgment, while section 86.42 endorsed the concept 

that judicial review stayed enforcement. Three years later, the legislature 

addressed this apparent conflict. Section 86.42 was amended to allow 

the commissioner’s decision to be converted into a decree or judgment 

“in the absence of a petition for judicial review or if judicial review has 

been commenced, in the absence of a stay of execution or enforcement.” 

1977 Iowa Acts ch. 51, § 20. This change clarified two principles. First, 

the legislature did not want the filing of a petition for judicial review to 

automatically stay enforcement of a judgment in a workers’ 

compensation proceeding. Second, a stay in a workers’ compensation 

proceeding could only be entered under the same guidelines governing a 

stay of other agency action. Consequently, this history undermines the 

claim made by Grinnell College that stays during judicial review of 

workers’ compensation actions must be entered under different 

standards than stays entered in other agency action, and that stays of 

worker’s compensation awards should be entered as a matter of course 

to maintain the status quo during judicial review. Thus, we turn to 

section 17A.19(5) to consider the four factors governing the grant of a 

stay and how they apply to workers’ compensation proceedings. 

 The four factors enumerated in section 17A.19(5) are largely 

derived from factors developed under federal law for the issuance of a 
 10 

stay of agency action. See Teleconnect Co., 366 N.W.2d at 513–14 

(explaining derivation of our four-factor analysis from the federal 

analysis). Although we have applied these factors in the past, we have 

had little occasion to elaborate on their meaning, especially in judicial 

review of agency action involving workers’ compensation decisions. Their 

meaning, however, is important considering the crucial role they play in 

deciding whether a stay is entered. 

 The first factor considers the “extent” the applicant for the stay “is 

likely to prevail when the court finally disposes of the matter.” Iowa Code 

§ 17A.19(5)(c)(1). This factor does not describe the degree of likelihood of 

prevailing, but only requires the court to consider and balance the extent 

or range of the likelihood of success. See generally John W. Gotanda, 

Emerging Standards for Issuing Appellate Stays, 45 Baylor L. Rev. 809 

(1993). Thus, the degree of likelihood of success required to be shown to 

obtain a stay will necessarily vary with the assessment of the other three 

factors. Mohammed v. Reno, 309 F.3d 95, 101 (3d Cir. 2002). A stay can 

be granted “where the likelihood of success is not high but the balance of 

hardships favors the applicant.” Id. In other words, more of one factor 

excuses less of another factor. Id. 

 The second factor considers the extent the employer “will suffer 

irreparable injury” if a stay is not entered. Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(c)(2). 

As applied to workers’ compensation proceedings, this factor must 

recognize that an employer has no means to obtain a stay by posting a 

bond during the pendency of judicial review, as the employer does in an 

appeal from a final decision by the district court on judicial review.3 See

 3Iowa Code section 626.58 also provides for a temporary stay of execution on 

any judgment for any party who can “procure one or more sufficient freehold sureties to 

enter a bond.” This presumably includes a judgment entered pursuant to section 

86.42. However, such a stay waives the right to appeal. Iowa Code § 626.60. 
 11 

Iowa R. App. P. 6.7 (providing for stay of civil proceedings on appeal by 

posting of a supersedeas bond). Thus, the request for a stay by an 

employer can be a critical component in a judicial review proceeding 

when the employee converts an award into a judgment. Additionally, 

payment on a judgment by an employer during the pendency of judicial 

review can give rise to problems if the district court ultimately decides to 

reduce or reverse the reward. In this case, Grinnell College primarily 

points to the legal and practical impediments to recovering overpayments 

if successful on judicial review and asserts these impediments reveal that 

stays should ordinarily be granted. See Iowa Code § 85.34(5) (limiting 

recovery of overpayment of workers’ compensation benefits). Osborn 

asserts such impediments do not rise to the level of “irreparable injury.” 

 We have recognized loss of revenue, even if substantial, “does not 

amount to irreparable damage” to support a stay of agency action 

pending judicial review. Teleconnect Co., 366 N.W.2d at 514. Yet, this 

rule is a general statement of the law and recognizes that extreme 

circumstances of financial loss, even if recoverable, could amount to 

irreparable injury. See Wisconsin Gas Co. v. Fed. Energy Regulatory 

Comm’n, 758 F.2d 669, 674 (D.C. Cir. 1985). Moreover, this general rule 

is largely premised on the principle that adequate compensation or 

corrective relief ultimately would be available if judicial review were 

successful, even though revenue may be lost in the short term in the 

absence of a stay. See Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. Fed. Power 

Comm’n, 259 F.2d 921, 925 (D.C. Cir. 1958). If the absence of a stay 

would deprive an employer of the ability to obtain relief if successful at 

the conclusion of judicial review, then irreparable injury could be shown. 

The loss-of-revenue rule was never meant to render judicial review 

meaningless. Instead, the irreparable-injury factor was meant to impose 
 12 

a strong showing on the applicant. Importantly, it requires the district 

court to first determine if the injury is “irreparable” and then determine 

the “extent” of the “irreparable injury.” In determining if the payment of 

a workers’ compensation judgment during the pendency of judicial 

review would constitute irreparable injury, the court should consider 

such circumstances as the extent of the relief sought on judicial review, 

the amount of the judgment, and the amount of the judgment that will 

not be recovered if paid. Of course, the employer must also establish the 

irreparable injury is certain and actual, not theoretical. Wisconsin Gas 

Co., 758 F.2d at 674. Mere allegations of “irreparable injury” have “no 

value since the court must decide whether the harm will in fact occur.” 

Id. 

 The third factor requires the court to balance the extent that a stay 

would substantially harm the employee or another party to the 

proceeding. In the workers’ compensation context, this factor mainly 

relates to the legislative purpose of workers’ compensation to provide 

injured workers prompt benefits once the commissioner has found 

benefits are due. Rivere v. Offshore Painting Contractors, 872 F.2d 1187, 

1190 (5th Cir. 1989) (discussing Congressional history of the Longshore 

and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act). Our legislature did not intend 

for the judicial-review process alone to justify delay in the payment of 

benefits awarded by the commissioner, see Iowa Code § 17A.19(5), but 

wanted the district court to consider how additional delay in payment of 

benefits as a result of judicial review would impact the worker. Thus, the 

court must consider circumstances such as the amount of time needed 

to complete judicial review and the financial needs of the injured worker 

during the pendency of judicial review. 
 13 

 The final factor considers the public’s interest. This factor helps 

distinguish stays involving agency action from stays or injunctions 

involving purely private parties. Rochester-Genesee Reg’l Transp. Auth. v. 

Bridgid Hynes-Cherin, 506 F. Supp. 2d 207, 212–13 (W.D.N.Y. 2007). It 

means the interest of private litigants in agency action may need to 

ultimately yield to the greater public interest. See Teleconnect Co., 366 

N.W.2d at 513. 

 In applying these factors to this case, Grinnell College first argues 

the district court failed to properly consider its likelihood of prevailing on 

the merits. Grinnell College asserts the trial court erred when it heard 

and decided the motion for stay prior to the time the parties had an 

opportunity to define and brief the issues as a part of the judicial review 

proceedings. 

 This argument overlooks that the applicant for a stay during 

judicial review has the burden to establish the prerequisites for a stay 

and must submit evidence to the district court concerning all relevant 

statutory factors at a hearing. The argument also fails to consider the 

broad objective of workers’ compensation to provide prompt benefits to 

injured workers. Additionally, our legislature has decided that judicial 

review should not automatically delay the payment of benefits. 

Consequently, the stay process does not contemplate the court must 

delay consideration of a request for a stay until the merits of the petition 

for judicial review have been briefed and submitted to the district court 

for final decision. Instead, the district court must schedule a hearing on 

an application for a stay and promptly decide the request based on the 

evidence submitted by the parties relating to the four statutory elements, 

including the likelihood of prevailing on the merits on judicial review. 
 14 

 Grinnell College next argues that the district court failed to 

consider its evidence of “irreparable harm.” It asserts that the difficulties 

of obtaining future reimbursement from Osborn, if Grinnell College were 

successful in reversing the award on judicial review, was supported by 

evidence that Osborn was no longer employed by Grinnell College at the 

time of judicial review. It claims this evidence means it will have no 

opportunity to seek reimbursement by means of a credit against any 

future benefits to Osborn under section 85.34(5). 

 We find it unnecessary to decide whether section 85.34(5) was 

intended to prevent an employer who has paid an award of weekly 

benefits converted into a judgment from seeking reimbursement from the 

employee if successful on judicial review.4 Even if Grinnell College would 

be unable to recover accrued benefits paid to Osborn as a result of the 

judgment, it has failed in this case to present any evidence that would 

have allowed the district court to balance this circumstance with the 

other three factors. Instead, Grinnell College sought to obtain a stay 

based almost entirely on the inherent unfairness of satisfying a judgment 

prior to a final decision on judicial review. Regardless of the potential 

merit of this argument, it is not one our legislature has accepted. See 

Rivere, 872 F.2d at 1191 (discussing the statutory requirements under 

 4Iowa Code section 85.34(5) governs recovery of weekly benefits paid to an 

employee in excess of those required to be paid under the law. The workers’ 

compensation commissioner in this case awarded Osborn forty-eight weeks of 

permanent partial disability from September 15, 1995, to August 15, 2000, and 

permanent total disability benefits of $322.49 each week beginning August 16, 2000. 

The amount of the judgment entered by the district court included $110,644.37 for 

past-due accrued disability benefits (less benefits previously paid), medical expenses of 

$45,561.37, and accrued interest. 

We also find it unnecessary to decide if Iowa Code section 625A.15 applies to 

this case. Iowa Code section 625A.15 allows an appellate or district court to order 

“restoration of any part of the money or property that was taken from the appellant by 

means of a judgment or order” which has been reversed on appeal. 
 15 

the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act to obtain a stay of 

compensation awards pending an appeal despite persistent calls for 

Congress to change the strict requirements). 

We conclude the district court did not abuse its discretion in 

denying the stay. The record supports the decision of the district court. 

V. Due Process and Equal Protection. 

 Grinnell College also argues its statutory and constitutional rights 

to due process and equal protection will be violated if it is forced to 

satisfy the workers’ compensation commissioner’s award before the 

judicial review and appeals processes have been completed. The record 

demonstrates none of these issues were preserved for our review. 

“It is a fundamental doctrine of appellate review that issues must 

ordinarily be both raised and decided by the district court before we will 

decide them on appeal.” Meier v. Senecaut, 641 N.W.2d 532, 537 (Iowa 

2002). “When a district court fails to rule on an issue properly raised by 

a party, the party who raised the issue must file a motion requesting a 

ruling in order to preserve error for appeal.” Id. These issues were not 

raised in Grinnell College’s resistance to the judgment entry or its motion 

to stay. Further, the district court did not decide them in its ruling on 

the motion to stay, nor did it address them in the judgment entry. 

Finally, and fatally to our consideration of these issues, Grinnell College 

did not file a rule 1.904(2) motion to enlarge the findings or conclusions. 

As a consequence, the due process and equal protection claims are not 

preserved for our review. 

VI. Conclusion. 

 We affirm the decision of the district court. 

AFFIRMED. 

 All justices concur except Baker, J., who takes no part.