 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DORMAN v. CARROLL COUNTY12/30/1981
The respondents appeal from a district court ruling which reversed the agency denial of worker's compensation benefits. We affirm.
This case arose out of an automobile collision which killed two deputy sheriffs of Carroll County, Wilbur Dorman and Raymond Rogers. Earlier in the evening, the deputies had been working at Carroll county community celebrations as special policemen. Although not on "active duty," they were on "auxiliary duty" while working as special police. During the night, deputy Rogers assisted in making an OMVUI arrest. Deputy Dorman also arrested an individual and assisted in transporting him to the Carroll County Jail, and assisted in processing another OMVUI suspect.
After leaving the Carroll County Courthouse at approximately 3:45 a.m., the deputies met the other special police who had been working that night at Marvin Hulsing's farm. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss problems they had encountered during the evening, and how to prevent them in the future. The deputies consumed some beer at the meeting. Prior to leaving the courthouse, Dorman and Rogers informed Deputy Stout, the only member of the sheriff's department on active duty at the time, where they were going, and said they would be available to help if needed. Stout told them he would be going out of the county to take a blood sample to Denison. On his way to Denison, Stout drove by the farm and honked and waived to the deputies. There was no one else on active duty in the county at that time.
Just prior to 4:40 a.m., the group decided to go to Country Kitchen to have breakfast. Deputy Dorman rode with deputy Rogers, who was going to drive Dorman home. The Country Kitchen is on a direct route from the Hulsing farm to Deputy Dorman's home. The collision occurred on the way to the Country Kitchen. Both deputies were killed.
Accident reconstruction engineers estimated the deputy's vehicle was traveling between 70 and 85 miles per hour at the time of impact. Deputy Rogers, the driver of the car, had a blood alcohol level of .0815 percent, and Deputy Dorman had a blood alcohol level of .104 percent.
The widows of the deputies applied for worker's compensation benefits, which were denied by the deputy industrial commissioner. The deputy's decision was affirmed by the Iowa Industrial Commissioner. The trial court reversed and held the claimants were entitled to benefits. The county and the insurance company appeal.
The appellants assert that the trial court erred by failing to remand the case to the industrial commissioner because the deputy commissioner failed to make any specific fact findings or legal findings. Although we agree with the trial court that the deputy's style of writing made judicial review difficult, the judge was not required to remand the case. See Hawk v. Jim Hawk Chevrolet-Buick, Inc., 282 N.W.2d 84, 87 (Iowa 1979).
The appellants argue that the trial court erred because it (1) reversed the agency action on a basis not urged by the claimants; (2) reversed when the agency's fact findings were supported by substantial evidence; (3) reversed when the agency had not erroneously applied the law; (4) awarded compensation when the injuries did not [316 NW2d Page 425]
"arise out of" the employment, nor were they "in the course of" the employment; and (5) applied the coming and going rule and its exceptions to the case.
At the outset, we note that the findings of fact by the industrial commissioner are binding on the courts, but application of rules of law by the commissioner may be examined by the court. McDowell v. Town of Clarksville, 241 N.W.2d 904 (Iowa 1976). We find no merit in the first two co
Page 1 2 Iowa DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|