No. 4-408 / 03-1325.Court of Appeals of Iowa.
July 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Thomas Koehler, Judge.
Claimant-appellant, Brett Marovec, appeals from the district court’s decision on judicial review affirming the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s dismissal of his appeal for failure to timely file a brief. AFFIRMED.
Pete Leehey of Pete Leehey Law Firm, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant.
John Bickel of Shuttleworth Ingersoll, P.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Huitink and Miller, JJ.
SACKETT, C.J.
Claimant-appellant, Brett Marovec, appeals from the district court’s decision on judicial review affirming the Workers’ Compensation Commissioner’s dismissal of his appeal for failure to timely file a brief. He contends the Commissioner’s decision was an abuse of discretion and an error of law. We affirm.
On March 29, 2001, claimant filed a notice of appeal from a March 13, 2001 arbitration decision in his workers’ compensation claim. Under the rules, he had fifty days to file a brief on appeal, which would have been due by May 18.[1] On June 4, the commissioner issued an order to show cause why claimant’s appeal should not be dismissed for failure to file a brief. The order stated the claimant had twenty days to file evidence, briefs, and exceptions to the issue of dismissal of his appeal for failure to file a brief. In his reply to the order to show cause, claimant stated only, “Claimant’s brief was not filed due to an oversight.” It acknowledged the twenty-day period for filing briefs and stated claimant would file a brief within the twenty days. Claimant filed a brief on the merits of the appeal, but filed nothing further on the issue of dismissal of his appeal for failure to timely file a brief. On July 31, the commissioner filed a ruling on the order to show cause, dismissing the appeal for failure to timely file a brief. Claimant sought judicial review. The district court denied the petition for judicial review, concluding,
The ruling on the order to show cause indicates Petitioner did not provide adequate reasons justifying his failure to file a brief, and the Commissioner was well within her discretion to dismiss the claim based on his failure to file his brief and his failure to provide the reasons for his failure to file his brief.
The Commissioner has discretion in imposing sanctions for failure to comply with an agency order or to follow the rules. See Walsh v. Schneider Nat’l Carriers, 497 N.W.2d 895, 897 (Iowa 1993). That discretion includes dismissing an appeal. Iowa Admin. Code r. 876-4.36. Our statutory scope of review provides for reversal if the agency’s decision is “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(n) (2001).
These terms have established meanings:
“An agency’s action is `arbitrary’ or `capricious’ when it is taken without regard to the law or facts of the case. . . . Agency action is `unreasonable’ when it is `clearly against reason and evidence.'” Soo Line R.R. v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 521 N.W.2d 685, 688-89 (Iowa 1994). An abuse of discretion occurs when the agency action “rests on grounds or reasons clearly untenable or unreasonable.” Schoenfeld v. FDL Foods, Inc., 560 N.W.2d 595, 598 (Iowa 1997). We have said an “`abuse of discretion is synonymous with unreasonableness, and involves lack of rationality, focusing on whether the agency has made a decision clearly against reason and evidence.'” Id. (quoting Stephenson v. Furnas Elec. Co., 522 N.W.2d 828, 831
(Iowa 1994)).
Dico, Inc. v. Iowa Employment Appeal Bd., 576 N.W.2d 352, 355 (Iowa 1998). The Commissioner gave claimant an opportunity to respond to the order to show cause, including filing evidence, briefs, and exceptions to the order. Claimant’s only response was the failure to timely file a brief was “an oversight.” The Commissioner found this response inadequate and imposed sanctions. The district court correctly evaluated the Commissioner’s exercise of discretion and affirmed. We cannot say the Commissioner’s decision meets the definition of “unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(n). Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the district court.
AFFIRMED.