Iowa: Husband Eligible for Work Comp Death Benefits Despite Separation

The husband of a deceased worker is not ineligible for workers’ compensation death benefits merely because he no longer lived with his wife when she died, a divided Iowa Supreme Court ruled Friday.

In a 4-2 decision, the high court affirmed rulings by both the Polk County District Court and the state Court of Appeals that found Roger Blasdell was entitled to death benefits if further proceedings determine his wife’s death resulted from a workplace accident. A deputy commissioner had determined Blasdell was not entitled to benefits because he had “willfully deserted” his wife Heather before she was injured.

The high court peered back deep into history, citing a 1919 court decision and quoting one of the Federalist Papers to support its finding that Roger and Heather Blasdell’s relationship was a marriage even if was unconventional.

The majority said the couple’s separation did not necessarily mean their marriage was illegitimate.

“Although Roger engaged in a romantic relationship with another woman during this time, there is no exception under the statute precluding a surviving spouse from receiving workers’ compensation benefits for adultery,” the majority opinion says, citing an Iowa statute. “Nor is it within our authority to create such an exception.”

Heather Blasdell injured her right heel in November 2012 while working as a caregiver for Linnhaven Inc. in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. A deputy workers’ compensation commissioner determined that she was permanently and totally disabled as a result of the injury in conjunction with a more serious psychological impairment.

Heather died in September 2016 as the result of overdosing on the prescription drugs that had been prescribed to her to treat the work injury. Roger paid for his wife’s burial expenses and then filed a claim for workers’ compensation survivor’s benefits.

Linnhaven and its workers’ compensation insurer, Accident Fund National Insurance Co., contended that Blasdell was not eligible for benefits. Spouses are generally presumed to be dependents entitled to death benefits under Iowa workers’ compensation law, but Section 85.42(1)(a) creates an exception “if it is shown that at the time of the injury the surviving spouse had willfully deserted the deceased without fault of the deceased.”

Roger and Heather had lived together since 1998 and had a daughter together in 1999, according to the Supreme Court’s opinion. They married in 2008.

In 2011, however, Heather lost her job and moved from the couple’s home in Delhi, Iowa to Clinton Iowa, about 90 miles away. She later moved into a friend’s home in Cedar Rapids, and accepted a job with Linnhaven. Roger, in the meantime, moved to Manchester, Iowa because he could no longer afford to pay the rent at the home had had shared with Heather.

The couple stayed in touch but no longer had an intimate relationship, according to testimony. Roger became involved with another woman and lived with her for a time, but the couple later broke up. Roger, nonetheless, continued to speak with Heather regularly and gave her money occasionally, relatives said.

A deputy workers’ compensation commissioner determined that Roger was not eligible for benefits because he had “willfully deserted” Heather for no fault of her own. Roger asked for judicial review. A Polk County judge overturned the deputy commissioner, noting that it was Heather who had decided to leave the family home to look for work elsewhere. The Court of Appeals affirmed the decision that Roger was entitled to benefits.

The Supreme Court majority found little case law to inform its decision. The opinion cites a 1919 ruling that found a husband who had left the family home to find work had not deserted his wife. The majority opinion also quotes Federalist Paper No. 78, written by Alexander Hamilton, which says courts “may truly be said to have neither force nor will, but merely judgment.”

The opinion cites decisions from other states that have found spouses who lived apart were nevertheless entitled to survivor benefits.

“By all appearances, Roger and Heather made a mutual decision to live apart and had an unconventional marriage at the time of Heather’s 2012 injury,” the opinion says. “But the statutory language of Iowa Code section 85.42(1)(a) is clear that the spousal desertion exception only applies if at the time of Heather’s injury, Roger had willfully deserted Heather without fault by Heather.”

Justices Christopher McDonald and Dana Oxley dissented, and Justice David May did not take part in the decision. McDonald said in a dissenting opinion that the majority seemed to have gone of its way to find fault with the deputy commissioner’s ruling, despite precedent that establishes findings of fact by lower courts should be respected.

The case is far from settled. The decision returns the case to the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Division, which must decide whether Heather Blasdell’s overdose was a consequence of her injury or a “willful act” that is not compensable.