Opinion ID: 1679399
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Constitutionality of the Scheduled Injury Provisions of Iowa's Workers' Compensation Scheme.

Text: Gilleland contends the scheduled injury provisions of Iowa Code section 85.34(2) violate the equal protection guarantees of the United States and Iowa Constitutions. The equal protection guarantees of the United States Constitution are provided in the Fourteenth Amendment, section one, as follows: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. U.S. Const. amend. XIV § 1. The Iowa Constitution puts substantially the same limitations on state legislation, providing: All laws of a general nature shall have a uniform operation; the general assembly shall not grant to any citizen, or class of citizens, privileges or immunities, which, upon the same terms shall not equally belong to all citizens. Iowa Const. art. I § 6. As a threshold issue, Gilleland contends section 85.34(2) is subject to strict scrutiny analysis as opposed to the less stringent rational basis analysis. See Suckow v. NEOWA FS, Inc., 445 N.W.2d 776, 778 (Iowa 1989). In order for a statute to be subject to strict scrutiny it must involve a suspect classification or a fundamental right. Id. Gilleland initially claims section 85.34(2) should be subject to strict scrutiny because the entire workers' compensation scheme impinges upon the fundamental right to sue for damages. This issue has been decided adversely to Gilleland in Suckow. Suckow involved an equal protection challenge to Iowa Code section 85.20 (1985), granting an employer-tortfeaser immunity and a coemployee limited immunity from suit. Suckow, 445 N.W.2d at 777-78. Suckow contended the distinction between the liability of an employer and co-employee in section 85.20 infringed upon a fundamental righthis access to the courts. Id. at 778. We determined Suckow incorrectly assumed that access to the courts is itself a fundamental right and refused to apply the strict scrutiny analysis. Id. We find no difference between Suckow's alleged right to have access to the courts and Gilleland's alleged right to sue for damages. The right to sue for damages is not itself a fundamental right. Gilleland argues a second alternative for application of strict scrutiny analysis. He contends an employee who does not suffer a scheduled injury is able to obtain recovery for loss of earning capacity while an employee who suffers a scheduled injury is not. He claims this distinction treats the two classes of injured employees differently to the detriment of those suffering scheduled injuries. Gilleland fails to cite any authority indicating the United States Supreme Court has found this distinction involves a suspect class or a fundamental right. Without such authority, we are not bound to apply strict scrutiny analysis. See Stracke v. City of Council Bluffs, 341 N.W.2d 731, 733 (Iowa 1983) (strict scrutiny analysis only required in few cases involving suspect classes and fundamental rights as defined by Supreme Court). Thus, we need only apply the rational basis analysis to Gilleland's alleged constitutional violation. Cf., Stephenson v. Sugar Creek Packing, 250 Kan. 768, 830 P.2d 41, 48 (1992). In the application of the rational basis analysis, Gilleland must first demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the scheduled injury classifications of section 85.34(2) deny him equal protection. See Suckow, 445 N.W.2d at 779. He must indicate with particularity how this denial occurs. Id. To meet this heavy burden, he must negate every reasonable basis which may support this classification. Id. Gilleland's arguments in relation to the rational basis analysis again focus on the ability of employees who suffer nonscheduled injuries to obtain compensation for loss of earning capacity while those suffering scheduled injuries cannot. He claims there is no rational basis for this distinction. Gilleland is correct that a disparity exists between the compensation for scheduled and nonscheduled injuries. Non-scheduled permanent partial disabilities are compensated by the industrial disability method which takes into account the loss of earning capacity. Mortimer v. Fruehauf Corp., 502 N.W.2d 12, 14-15 (Iowa 1993). Scheduled permanent partial disabilities, on the other hand, are arbitrarily compensable according to the classifications of section 85.34(2) without regard to loss of earning capacity. Id. Determining disability in this fashionlooking only to the impairment of the employee's body functionis referred to as the functional disability method. Id. By using the functional disability method of section 85.34(2), we are not concerned with the question of the extent of disability. The compensation in that event is definitely fixed according to the loss of use of the particular member. The very purpose of the schedule is to make certain the amount of compensation in the case of specific injuries and to avoid controversies .... Dailey v. Pooley Lumber Co., 233 Iowa 758, 760, 10 N.W.2d 569, 571 (1943) (emphasis added). As Dailey indicates, a rational basis exists for the application of the scheduled injury provisions of section 85.34(2). They reduce controversies through certainty of compensation. Accord Mortimer, 502 N.W.2d at 17; see also Schell v. Central Eng'g Co., 232 Iowa 421, 425, 4 N.W.2d 399, 401 (1942) (The [scheduled injury] statute was intended to be definite. It draws definite lines. A line is necessarily arbitrary.). Because a rational basis for the scheduled injury provisions exists, we conclude Gilleland's challenge must fail. This result is consistent with other jurisdictions that have considered constitutional challenges to similar scheduled injury provisions. See Imrich v. Industrial Comm'n, 13 Ariz.App. 155, 474 P.2d 874, 875 (1970) (scheduled injury provisions not entirely arbitrary or unreasonable); Koesterer v. Industrial Comm'n, 45 Ill.2d 383, 259 N.E.2d 49, 50 (1970) (limitation of compensation for scheduled injuries not an arbitrary and unreasonable classification); Deegan v. Raymond Int'l Builders, 518 So.2d 1082, 1084 (La.App.1987) (requirement of fifty percent or greater loss of use before recovery of scheduled disability benefits held constitutional); Hise Constr. v. Candelaria, 98 N.M. 759, 760, 652 P.2d 1210, 1211 (1982) (scheduled injury section not unconstitutional as applied).