Opinion ID: 1948206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the District Court Should Have Stayed the Execution of the Judgment it Entered on the Penalty Benefit Award.

Text: Snap-On claims section 17A.19(5) is not applicable to the district court when the court determines whether to grant a stay involving a monetary award made by the workers' compensation commissioner. We disagree. Chapter 17A governs a petition for judicial review of a contested case proceeding unless specifically excluded from chapter 17A. Iowa Code § 17A.1(2). There is no provision in the workers' compensation statutes excluding decisions of the workers' compensation commissioner from review under chapter 17A or from the constraints of section 17A.19(5). See generally id. § 86.26 (providing for judicial review of commissioner's decisions in accordance with chapter 17A). Accordingly, to resolve this issue we need to decide whether the court should have stayed the enforcement of the judgment under section 17A.19(5). See Grinnell Coll., 751 N.W.2d at 397-98, 401-02 (applying a section 17A.19(5) analysis in deciding whether the district court should have stayed a monetary award made by the workers' compensation commissioner). The district court's ruling on a motion to stay the enforcement of a judgment under section 17A.19(5) is reviewed for an abuse of discretion. Id. at 398. To determine whether a stay should be entered, the court must consider and balance the following factors: (1) The extent to which the applicant is likely to prevail when the court finally disposes of the matter. (2) The extent to which the applicant will suffer irreparable injury if relief is not granted. (3) The extent to which the grant of relief to the applicant will substantially harm other parties to the proceedings. (4) The extent to which the public interest relied on by the agency is sufficient to justify the agency's action in the circumstances. Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)( c ) (1999 Supp.). It is the applicant's burden to present evidence establishing the prerequisites for the stay. Grinnell Coll., 751 N.W.2d at 403. In its ruling denying the stay, the district court states it held a telephonic hearing on the issuance of a stay. Snap-On, the appellant, has failed to provide us with a transcript of the proceeding or a statement of evidence under Iowa Rule of Appellate Procedure 6.10(3). In order for us to determine whether the district court abused its discretion in not granting the stay, Snap-On is required to provide a record showing why the court abused its discretion. In re F.W.S., 698 N.W.2d 134, 135 (Iowa 2005). Without such a record we will not speculate as to what proof was offered in support of the stay. Id. Thus, we must affirm the decision of the district court denying the stay because Snap-On has failed to present us with a proper record to review.