Opinion ID: 1689578
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Validity of Rexam's Lien Under Iowa Code Section 85.22(1).

Text: Prior to 1974, section 85.22 read as follows: When an employee receives an injury for which compensation is payable under this chapter, and which injury is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against some person other than the employer to pay damages, the employee... may also maintain an action against such third party for damages. Iowa Code § 85.22 (1973) (emphasis added). As a result of an amendment enacted by 1974 Iowa Acts chapter 1111, section 2, this statute now reads: When an employee receives an injury... for which compensation is payable under this chapter ... and which injury... is caused under circumstances creating a legal liability against some person, other than the employee's employer or any employee of such employer as provided in section 85.20 to pay damages, the employee ... may also maintain an action against such third party for damages.... 1. If compensation is paid the employee... the employer by whom the same was paid, or the employer's insurer which paid it, shall be indemnified out of the recovery of damages to the extent of the payment so made, with legal interest, except for such attorney fees as may be allowed ... and shall have a lien on the claim for such recovery and the judgment thereon for the compensation for which the employer or insurer is liable.... Iowa Code § 85.22 (2001) (emphasis added). The 1974 amendment to section 85.22 coincided with a change in the law that granted coemployees the same exclusive-remedy defense that exists for an employer provided, however, that such defense does not prevent recovery for injuries caused by a coemployee's gross negligence. See 1974 Iowa Acts ch. 1111, § 1. That amendment is reflected in the current version of Iowa Code section 85.20, which provides: The rights and remedies provided in this chapter ... for an employee ... on account of injury ... shall be the exclusive and only rights and remedies of the employee ... on account of such injury... against any of the following: 1. Against the employee's employer. 2. Against any other employee of such employer, provided that such injury... arises out of and in the course of such employment and is not caused by the other employee's gross negligence amounting to such lack of care as to amount to wanton neglect of the safety of another. The sole issue on this appeal involves the meaning to be given the words other than the employee's employer or any employee of such employer as provided in section 85.20. Forbes urges that this language serves to exclude actions against any coemployee from the indemnification and lien provisions of section 85.22(1). Rexam urges that this language is only intended to exclude those coemployees who enjoy the immunity that section 85.20(2) now provides. The words any employee of such employer as provided in section 85.20 do not, Rexam urges, implicate claims based on gross negligence for which the coemployees do not enjoy the exclusive-remedy defense provided in section 85.20. We interpret statutes in light of their evident legislative intent, harmonizing them, if possible, with related statutes. Comm'n on Unauthorized Practice of Law v. A-1 Assocs., 623 N.W.2d 803, 807 (Iowa 2001); Doe v. Ray, 251 N.W.2d 496, 500-01 (Iowa 1977). Plain language or plain meaning of a statutory provision is not limited to the meaning of individual terms, but rather, such inquiry requires examining the text of the statute as a whole by considering its context, object, and policy. Voss v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., 621 N.W.2d 208, 211 (Iowa 2001). We are convinced that the employer has the better argument on the meaning of section 85.22. Some indication of the purpose of 1974 Iowa Acts chapter 1111 is found in the title to the bill, which reads: AN ACT to provide that the right to workmen's compensation shall be the exclusive remedy to an employee against his employer or fellow employee on account of injury or occupational disease. We conclude that, consistent with the language of that title, the legislature did two things. First, subject to the gross-negligence exception, it rewrote section 85.20 so as to bestow on coemployees the same exclusive-remedy defense as is enjoyed by the employer. Second, it expanded the other than clause in the first unnumbered paragraph of section 85.22 to include not only the employer but also those coemployees who, like the employer, had now been exempted from suit by a claimant who had received benefits under the act. If it had been the intention of the legislature to exclude all coemployees from being subject to tort actions based on work-related injuries, it would not have been necessary to qualify the words employee of such employer with the words as provided in section 85.20. We have considered all issues presented and conclude that the judgment of the district court should be reversed. The case is remanded to that court for an order reinstating the lien that Rexam and its workers' compensation insurance carrier filed pursuant to section 85.22(1). REVERSED AND REMANDED. All justices concur except NEUMAN, J., who takes no part.