ISLE OF CAPRI CASINO, Petitioner-Appellee, vs. DIANE WILSON, Respondent-Appellant.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 9-659 / 09-0278
Filed September 2, 2009
ISLE OF CAPRI CASINO,
Petitioner-Appellee,
vs.
DIANE WILSON,
Respondent-Appellant.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, James E. Kelley,
Judge.
Claimant appeals from the district court‟s ruling dismissing her claim after
finding the Iowa Workers‟ Compensation Commission did not have jurisdiction of
the case. AFFIRMED.
Paul Salabert, Jr. of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Davenport, for appellant.
Cameron A. Davidson and Benjamin J. Patterson of Lane & Waterman,
L.L.P., Davenport, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Eisenhauer and Doyle, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Claimant, Diane Wilson, appeals the district court ruling dismissing her
claim for workers‟ compensation benefits after finding the Iowa Workers‟
Compensation Commission did not have jurisdiction of the case. We affirm.
BACKGROUND. Wilson is employed as a housekeeper at the Isle of
Capri Casino, a riverboat casino and hotel. On January 4, 2005, Wilson fell on
ice and was injured when she was taking trash out to the casino‟s trash
compactor. She sought workers‟ compensation benefits and the casino denied
the claim alleging that the Iowa Workers‟ Compensation Commission lacked
jurisdiction because the claim was governed by the federal Jones Act. Following
an arbitration hearing, a deputy commissioner found that it had jurisdiction and
awarded Wilson benefits.
This decision was adopted and affirmed by the
commission on appeal on March 20, 2008. The casino filed a petition for judicial
review of the decision and a motion to stay enforcement of the decision pending
judicial review. The district court heard oral arguments on the motion to stay and
thereafter ruled that it was not warranted.1 On October 22, 2008, the district
court heard arguments on the petition for judicial review.
In a ruling filed
December 9, 2008, the district court determined the commission improperly
found it had jurisdiction of the claim. Wilson appeals this decision.
STANDARD OF REVIEW. Review of workers‟ compensation commission
decisions is governed by Iowa Code chapter 17A, the Iowa Administrative
1
We reversed this decision and remanded for the district court to issue a stay of the
award pending judicial review. See Wilson v. Isle of Capri Casino, No. 08-1264 (Iowa
Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2009).
3
Procedure Act. Iowa Code § 86.26 (2005); Clark v. Vicorp Rests., Inc., 696
N.W.2d 596, 603 (Iowa 2005). We may only interfere with the decision if it is
erroneous under one of the grounds listed in Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) and
a person‟s substantial rights have been prejudiced.
Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710
N.W.2d 213, 218 (Iowa 2006). We apply the standards of chapter 17A and in
doing so, if we reach the same conclusions as the district court we affirm.
Mycogen Seeds v. Sands, 686 N.W.2d 457, 464 (Iowa 2004). We uphold the
commissioner‟s findings of fact if supported by substantial evidence. Meyer, 710
N.W.2d at 218.
JURISDICTION. Iowa law provides that if an injured worker is covered by
a federal compensation statute, Iowa‟s workers‟ compensation laws do not apply.
Iowa Code § 85.1(6). Under the federal Jones Act,
A seaman injured in the course of employment . . . may elect to
bring a civil action at law, with the right of trial by jury, against the
employer. Laws of the United States regulating recovery for
personal injury to, or death of, a railway employee apply to an
action under this section.
46 U.S.C. § 30104. If an employee is a “seaman” under the Jones Act, the
workers‟ compensation commission lacks subject matter jurisdiction to award
benefits.
Harvey’s Casino v. Isenhour, 724 N.W.2d 705, 709 (Iowa 2006).
Seaman status is acquired if (1) the employee‟s duties contribute to the vessel‟s
function or mission, and (2) the employee has a substantial connection to a
vessel in navigation, both in terms of its duration and nature. Id. at 707 (citing
Chandris, Inc. v. Latsis, 515 U.S. 347, 368, 115 S. Ct. 2172, 2190, 132 L. Ed. 2d
314, 337 (1995)). Wilson concedes that her work contributed to the function and
4
mission of the casino and she had a substantial connection to the casino. The
decisive issue in determining if Wilson is a seaman under the Jones act is
whether the casino at the time of her injury was a “vessel in navigation.”
In analyzing whether a riverboat casino is a “vessel” our supreme court
has determined that the federal statutory definition
“requires only that a watercraft be „used or capable of being used,
as a means of transportation on water‟ to qualify as a vessel. It
does not require that a watercraft be used primarily for that
purpose.”
Id. at 708 (quoting Stewart v. Dutra Constr. Co., 543 U.S. 481, 495, 125 S. Ct.
1118, 1128, 160 L. Ed. 2d 932, 946 (2005)) (emphasis supplied). The riverboats
at issue in Harvey’s Casino, 724 N.W.2d at 708, were held to be vessels
because it was “not disputed that the riverboats were capable of, and did, ply the
waters of the Missouri River approximately 200 hours per year as required by
Iowa‟s gaming laws.”
Wilson distinguishes the Isle of Capri from the riverboats involved in
Harvey’s Casino. She asserts the Isle of Capri was not a “vessel in navigation”
because unlike the boats in Harvey’s Casino that actually sailed, the Isle of Capri
casino boat elected to no longer sail after June 30, 2004, when Iowa law was
amended to no longer require casino riverboats to sail.
At the time of the
claimants‟ injuries in Harvey’s Casino, Iowa law required riverboat casinos to sail
two hundred hours per year. See Iowa Admin. Code r. 491-5.6 (2001); Harvey’s
Casino, 724 N.W.2d at 708. At the time of Wilson‟s injury, riverboat casinos were
no longer required to sail at all. See 2004 Iowa Acts ch. 1136, §62 (allowing
gambling boats to operate as “a moored barge, an excursion boat that will cruise,
5
or an excursion boat that will not cruise”); Iowa Code § 99F.7(2)(a) (2005); Iowa
Admin. Code r. 491-5.6(1)(c) (2005) (authorizing gaming floors to be on “moored
barges”).
The commissioner agreed that the Isle of Capri was distinguishable from
the boats in Harvey’s Casino finding,
the casino boat that employed the claimant at the time she was
injured was not a vessel in navigation under the federal Jones Act.
The boat did not sail at all at the time she was injured. It was a
permanently moored casino boat and thus was not a vessel in
navigation.
On this basis, the agency determined the Iowa Workers‟ Compensation
Commission had jurisdiction over Wilson‟s claim and the Jones Act did not apply.
The district court reversed this finding, determining on judicial review there was
no evidence the casino boat was permanently moored or incapable of cruising in
January 2005. It found there was substantial evidence showing the boat “was
capable of being used as a means of maritime transportation and had not lost its
character as a vessel in navigation by any permanent mooring.”
We reach the same conclusion as the district court in our review of the
agency‟s findings. At the time of Wilson‟s accident, in January 2005, the Isle of
Capri was still fully capable of sailing. It had a captain and marine crew on staff,
was still under the jurisdiction of the Coast Guard, and had insurance coverage
certifying it to sail. It was undisputed that the boat was capable of sailing within
ninety minutes at any given time. The casino did not become reclassified as a
permanently moored vessel until November 2005.
6
The district court correctly determined there was not substantial evidence
to support the agency‟s finding that the casino was permanently moored at the
time of Wilson‟s accident. Its conclusion that the casino was fully capable of
sailing, and therefore a “vessel in navigation” for purposes of the Jones Act is
supported by the record as a whole. We therefore agree with the district court‟s
ruling dismissing the claim on the ground that the workers‟ compensation
commission lacked jurisdiction to award Wilson benefits.
AFFIRMED.
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.
