UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS AND CLINICS AND STATE OF IOWA, Petitioners-Appellants, vs. ZELLA JEAN COCHERELL, Defendant-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 6-756 / 06-0457
Filed January 18, 2007
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HOSPITALS
AND CLINICS AND STATE OF IOWA,
Petitioners-Appellants,
vs.
ZELLA JEAN COCHERELL,
Defendant-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Karen A. Romano,
Judge.
The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the State of Iowa appeal
a judicial review decision affirming an award of workers’ compensation benefits.
AFFIRMED.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, and Julie A. Burger, Assistant
Attorney General, for appellants.
Dennis W. Emanuel and Michael O. Carpenter, Ottumwa, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran, J., and Robinson, S.J.*
*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2005).
2
VAITHESWARAN, J.
The University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics and the State of Iowa seek
further judicial review of a workers’ compensation decision.
They contend
claimant Zella Cocherell was not an employee but an independent contractor
who was not entitled to workers’ compensation benefits.
The workers’ compensation commissioner made detailed findings of fact
on this issue, as did the deputy workers’ compensation commissioner, whose
decision the commissioner “affirm[ed] and adopt[ed] as final.” Based on these
findings, the commissioner determined Cocherell was an employee and not an
independent contractor.
On judicial review, the district court applied the standards for review of
agency action set forth in Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) and determined that the
agency’s fact findings were supported by substantial evidence.
§ 17A.19(10)(f) (2005).
Iowa Code
The court further determined that those fact findings
“would permit a reasonable fact finder to reach the conclusion of the agency on
the issue of the Claimant’s status.”
Applying the section 17A.19(10) judicial review standards, we agree with
the district court that the agency’s fact findings are supported by substantial
evidence.
Id.
In light of the district court’s comprehensive ruling, no useful
purpose would be served by recounting the fact findings or the evidence
supporting those findings. We further conclude that the agency’s application of
law to fact was not “irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable.”
§ 17A.19(10)(m).
AFFIRMED.
Iowa Code
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
