IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA

No. 32 / 06–0400 

Filed October 3, 2008 

SNAP-ON TOOLS CORPORATION, 

 Appellant, 

vs. 

SANDRA K. SCHADENDORF 

f/k/a SANDRA K. WEISHAAR, 

 Appellee. 

 Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Kossuth County, Don E. 

Courtney, Judge. 

 The employer appeals a decision wherein the district court entered 

judgment on a workers’ compensation commissioner’s decision and then 

failed to stay the enforcement of the judgment. AFFIRMED. 

 Michael S. Roling of Peddicord, Wharton, Spencer, Hook, Barron & 

Wegman, LLP, Des Moines, for appellant. 

 Mark S. Soldat of Soldat & Parrish-Sams, P.L.C., West Des Moines, 

for appellee. 

 
2 

WIGGINS, Justice. 

In this appeal, the employer claims the district court should not 

have entered judgment under Iowa Code section 86.42 (1999) on a 

workers’ compensation decision awarding penalty benefits to the 

claimant. It further claims that if the district court did enter judgment, 

the district court should have stayed the entry of the judgment. Because 

we find the district court properly entered judgment under Iowa Code 

section 86.42, and the record does not allow us to review the court’s 

denial of the stay, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

This case involves a dispute arising from the commissioner’s award 

of $10,000 in penalty benefits to Sandra K. Schadendorf f/k/a Sandra K. 

Weishaar against her employer Snap-On Tools Corporation. While the 

petitions for judicial review were pending on the merits of the dispute, 

Schadendorf moved under section 86.42 to obtain a judgment in the 

district court for the $10,000 penalty benefit. Snap-On resisted the 

motion for judgment and moved to stay enforcement or execution of the 

commissioner’s decision awarding penalty benefits. On March 1, 2006, 

the district court entered judgment and denied the motion for the stay. 

On March 6 Snap-On appealed the judgment entry and the denial of its 

motion to stay. On March 8 Snap-On posted a supersedeas bond to 

prevent execution of the judgment. Details of the facts and prior 

proceedings regarding this dispute are set out in our opinion affirming 

the workers’ compensation commissioner’s award of penalty benefits to 

Schadendorf. Schadendorf v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 757 N.W.2d 330 (Iowa 

2008). 

To decide Snap-On’s appeal regarding the judgment entry for the 

penalty benefits award we need to decide whether the district court 

should have entered judgment against Snap-On for the penalty benefit 

award made by the commissioner, and if the district court properly 
3 

entered the judgment, then we must decide whether the district court 

should have stayed the execution of the judgment it entered on the 

penalty benefit award. 

I. Whether the District Court Should Have Entered Judgment 

Against Snap-On for the Penalty Benefit Award Made by the 

Commissioner. 

We review the district court’s decision to enter judgment in favor of 

Schadendorf for errors at law. Grinnell Coll. v. Osborn, 751 N.W.2d 396, 

398 (Iowa 2008). The Code provides: 

Any party in interest may present a certified copy of an 

order or decision of the commissioner, from which a timely 

petition for judicial review has not been filed or if judicial 

review has been filed, which has not had execution or 

enforcement stayed as provided in section 17A.19, 

subsection 5, or an order or decision of a deputy 

commissioner from which a timely appeal has not been 

taken within the agency and which has become final by the 

passage of time as provided by rule and section 17A.15, or 

an agreement for settlement approved by the commissioner, 

and all papers in connection therewith, to the district court 

where judicial review of the agency action may be 

commenced. The court shall render a decree or judgment 

and cause the clerk to notify the parties. The 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 of the decision or order of 

the workers’ compensation commissioner, or in the absence 

of an act of any party which prevents a decision of a deputy 

workers’ compensation commissioner from becoming final, 

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. Snap-On does not claim that Schadendorf’s request 

for entry of a judgment did not meet the requirements of section 86.42 at 

the time the district court entered the judgment on the commissioner’s 

decision. It argues because the court should have stayed the 

enforcement of the judgment, the court should not have entered the 
4 

judgment in the first place. This argument does not fit within the 

statutory scheme for the enforcement of a decision by the commissioner. 

 When a party requesting judgment has met all the conditions of 

section 86.42, the district court is required to enter the judgment in favor 

of the party requesting judgment. Rethamel v. Havey, 679 N.W.2d 626, 

628 (Iowa 2004). Therefore, the court was correct in entering the 

judgment as requested by Schadendorf. 

II. Whether the District Court Should Have Stayed the 

Execution of the Judgment it Entered on the Penalty Benefit Award. 

Snap-On claims section 17A.19(5) is not applicable to the district 

court when the court determines whether to grant a stay involving a 

monetary award made by the workers’ compensation commissioner. We 

disagree. 

Chapter 17A governs a petition for judicial review of a contested 

case proceeding unless specifically excluded from chapter 17A. Iowa 

Code § 17A.1(2). There is no provision in the workers’ compensation 

statutes excluding decisions of the workers’ compensation commissioner 

from review under chapter 17A or from the constraints of section 

17A.19(5). See generally id. § 86.26 (providing for judicial review of 

commissioner’s decisions “in accordance with chapter 17A”). 

Accordingly, to resolve this issue we need to decide whether the court 

should have stayed the enforcement of the judgment under section 

17A.19(5). See Grinnell Coll., 751 N.W.2d at 397–98, 401–02 (applying a 

section 17A.19(5) analysis in deciding whether the district court should 

have stayed a monetary award made by the workers’ compensation 

commissioner). 

The district court’s ruling on a motion to stay the enforcement of a 

judgment under section 17A.19(5) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. 
5 

Id. at 398. To determine whether a stay should be entered, the court 

must consider and balance the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which the applicant is likely to prevail 

when the court finally disposes of the matter. 

(2) The extent to which the applicant will suffer irreparable 

injury if relief is not granted. 

(3) The extent to which the grant of relief to the applicant 

will substantially harm other parties to the proceedings. 

(4) The extent to which the public interest relied on by the 

agency is sufficient to justify the agency’s action in the 

circumstances. 

Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(c) (1999 Supp.). It is the applicant’s burden to 

present evidence establishing the prerequisites for the stay. Grinnell 

Coll., 751 N.W.2d at 403. 

 In its ruling denying the stay, the district court states it held a 

telephonic hearing on the issuance of a stay. Snap-On, the appellant, 

has failed to provide us with a transcript of the proceeding or a 

statement of evidence under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.10(3). In 

order for us to determine whether the district court abused its discretion 

in not granting the stay, Snap-On is required to provide a record showing 

why the court abused its discretion. In re F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d 134, 135 

(Iowa 2005). Without such a record we will not speculate as to what 

proof was offered in support of the stay. Id. Thus, we must affirm the 

decision of the district court denying the stay because Snap-On has 

failed to present us with a proper record to review. 

III. Disposition. 

Because the district court properly entered judgment under Iowa 

Code section 86.42, and the record does not allow us to review the 

court’s denial of a stay, we affirm the judgment of the district court. 

AFFIRMED.

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