Opinion ID: 1231499
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Intervening Hiring.

Text: The Fund claims that inherent in Iowa Code section 85.64 is the implicit requirement that there be an intervening hiring between the first and second injuries. We note that although this is the first time we have expressly considered the issue, we have previously considered cases, and found the Fund liable, where the claimant had received separate injuries while working for the same employer. See, e.g., Second Injury Fund v. Mich Coal Co., 274 N.W.2d 300 (Iowa 1979); Irish v. McCreary Saw Mill, 175 N.W.2d 364 (Iowa 1970). The Fund concedes that, on its face, section 85.64 is silent as to any such intervening hiring requirement. It contends the requirement is compelled by the legislative intent behind the Second Injury Compensation Act. We have stated on several occasions that the purpose of the Act is to encourage employers to hire handicapped workers. See, e.g., Second Injury Fund v. Mich Coal Co., 274 N.W.2d at 302; Anderson v. Second Injury Fund, 262 N.W.2d 789, 791 (Iowa 1978). The Fund maintains that since Hodgins was not hired after his first injury, but rather retained by his previous employer, the legislative intent behind section 85.64 will not be served by holding the Fund liable. We believe this analysis focuses too narrowly on our use of the word hire and that it ignores instances in which we have defined the purpose of the Act more broadly. We have also phrased the purpose of the Act as being to encourage the employment of handicapped workers. See, e.g., Anderson, 262 N.W.2d at 792; Second Injury Fund v. Neelans, 436 N.W.2d 355, 358 (Iowa 1989). The retention of handicapped workers is consistent with the hiring of handicapped workers. Under the Fund's interpretation, the purpose of the Act would be to promote the hiring of handicapped workers, but not to prevent those workers from becoming unemployed in the first place. This conclusion is the type of strained, impractical or absurd result which we avoid in favor of a sensible, logical construction. Graves v. Eagle Iron Works, 331 N.W.2d 116, 117 (Iowa 1983). These considerations, combined with the fact that it is our policy to liberally construe workers' compensation statutes in favor of the worker, id., compel us to hold that there is no intervening hiring requirement under section 85.64.