Opinion ID: 1824335
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Sanction of Iowa Code Section 85.39.

Text: Iowa Code section 85.39 provides: After an injury, the employee, if requested by the employer, shall submit for examination at some reasonable time and place and as often as reasonably requested.... The refusal of the employee to submit to the examination shall suspend the employee's right to any compensation for the period of the refusal. Compensation shall not be payable for the period of the suspension. The juxtaposition of the last two sentences creates the controversy here. The first provides that [t]he refusal of the employee to submit to the examination shall suspend the employee's right to any compensation for the period of the refusal. (Emphasis added.) The second sentence provides that [c]ompensation shall not be payable for the period of suspension. The second sentence could be read as calling for either a suspension or a forfeiture. The worker, of course, argues for the first interpretation, while the employer argues for the latter. Suspension, not forfeiture, seems to be a common sanction in this situation. For example, it is said that the refusal of an employee to submit to a proper examination requested by the employer or ordered by the court or commission, will result in the suspension of his right to compensation during the time he persists in such refusal. Such provisions must be strictly construed; there must be full compliance with the requirements essential to the imposition of a penalty; and, where it appears that the employee did in fact submit, compensation will not be refused. 100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 484, at 423-24 (1958) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). Also, [a]n injured employee may generally be required at the request of his or her employer, or the employer's insurer, to undergo a medical examination in order to ascertain the existence or extent of disability or incapacity for the purpose of determining the amount of compensation, if any, to which the worker is entitled. Refusal to undergo such an examination without a reasonable excuse may result in suspension of the worker's right to compensation. 82 Am.Jur.2d Worker's Compensation § 504, at 499 (1992) (emphasis added) (footnotes omitted). We believe that both parties have presented plausible interpretations of section 85.39. The general rule is that workers' compensation statutes are to be construed liberally in favor of the worker. See Manpower Temporary Servs. v. Sioson, 529 N.W.2d 259, 262 (Iowa 1995); Mortimer v. Fruehauf Corp., 502 N.W.2d 12, 14 (Iowa 1993). And, as previously mentioned, sanctions in workers' compensation cases should be strictly construed. 100 C.J.S. Workmen's Compensation § 484, at 423-24. We conclude that the industrial commissioner and the district court correctly interpreted and applied section 85.39 by holding that this worker's compensation benefits were suspended, not forfeited, during the period of her refusal to submit to the independent medical examination. We are mindful of the concern that employers need an adequate sanction to enforce their statutory right to independent medical examinations. We believe, however, that suspension of workers' compensation benefits, especially over a long period of time, is a significant disincentive for a worker to refuse.