Opinion ID: 1668532
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: State Employee Disability Program.

Text: Iowa Code section 79.20 (1989), now section 70A.20 (1993), provides in part: A state employees disability insurance program is created, which shall be administered by the director of the department of personnel and which shall provide disability benefits in an amount and for the employees as provided in this section. The monthly disability benefits shall provide twenty percent of monthly earnings if employed less than one year, forty percent of monthly earnings if employed one year or more but less than two years, and sixty percent of monthly earnings thereafter, reduced by primary and family social security determined at the time social security disability payments commence, workers' compensation if applicable, and any other state sponsored sickness or disability benefits payable. (Emphasis added.) In providing for a state employees disability program, ISU secured a disability policy for the administration of the plan. Under this policy Erbe was entitled to monthly income payments of the sum of: (a) 75% of the first $1000 of monthly compensation; plus (b) 60% of any monthly compensation in excess of $1000. Income from other specified sources is credited against the monthly income payments which accrue under the policy. The policy specified: Income from other sources shall be ... (b) any payment for which you are eligible under a Workers' Compensation Act or other similar legislation or under any plan (including compulsory plans) providing benefits for loss of time from employment to which the University contributes or makes payroll deductions.... The Commissioner recognized section 79.20 required the state to provide its full time employees with a disability program, but found the state was not prohibited from providing its employees with benefits which are consistent with, but more favorable than those provided by the statute. The Commissioner concluded that where the state agreed to a plan that did not offset permanent partial disability compensation benefits, the state could not claim a credit under section 85.38(2). The district court interpreted section 79.20 to require disability payments to be reduced by workers' compensation payments without distinction among the various categories of workers' compensation benefits. The court found where a policy and the statute conflict, the statute controls. The court held the Commissioner erred at law in allowing the policy language to prevail over the relevant statute. We agree the state's disability plan may provide benefits beyond those required by section 79.20. However, we do not agree the disability plan, as expressed in the ISU disability policy, deprives the State of the credit provided by subsection 85.38(2). Nor do we agree with Erbe's argument that the State could only claim the credit for workers' compensation paid as a deduction of income from other sources when determining the monthly disability income payments. We construe the language of a statute in light of the legislative purpose. When more than one statute is pertinent to the inquiry, we consider the statutes together in an attempt to harmonize them. Harden v. State, 434 N.W.2d 881, 884 (Iowa 1989). We conclude section 85.38 was adopted for the purpose of avoiding a double recovery by a disabled employee who receives benefits under both workers' compensation and a group disability plan provided by the employer. As a part of an overall system of wage protection, duplication of benefits from workers' compensation and other parts of the system should not ordinarily be allowed. See 4 Larson, Workers' Compensation Law § 79.00, at 18-19 (1993). Iowa's employee disability program is a part of the overall system and the general rule to avoid duplication of benefits should apply. We affirm. AFFIRMED.