US Nursing Corp. d/b/a FASTAFF, Inc. and Safety National Casualty Corp. v. Cynthia Decormier

• Court: Court of Appeals of Iowa
• Decided: December 3, 2025
• Docket: 25-0407
• Status: Published

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 25-0407 Filed December 3, 2025

US NURSING CORP. d/b/a FASTAFF, INC. and SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORP., Petitioners-Appellants,

vs.

CYNTHIA DECORMIER, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald,

Judge.

An employer appeals an adverse judicial-review ruling following

proceedings before the workers’ compensation commissioner. AFFIRMED.

Stephen W. Spencer and Christopher S. Spencer (argued) of Peddicord

Lillis, LLP, West Des Moines, for appellants.

Matthew G. Novak (argued) of Pickens, Barnes & Abernathy, Cedar Rapids,

for appellee.

Heard at oral argument by Chicchelly, P.J., and Buller and Langholz, JJ. 2

BULLER, Judge.

U.S. Nursing Corp. d/b/a/ Fastaff, Inc., and Safety National Casualty Corp.

(collectively U.S. Nursing) appeal from judicial review of proceedings before the

workers’ compensation commissioner, asserting errors in calculating the rate of

benefits and the award of penalty benefits to Cynthia DeCormier. We affirm.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

DeCormier was working for U.S. Nursing as a traveling nurse and assigned

to a hospital in Sioux City when the parties stipulate she fell and injured her right

wrist. Under her contract at the time of injury, DeCormier was initially guaranteed

forty-eight hours of work per week at $65 per hour regular time and $97.50

overtime, and she received a $10 per hour raise the week before she fell.

In arbitration, a deputy workers’ compensation commissioner awarded

DeCormier benefits based on a weekly rate of $1562.60 and denied her claim for

penalty benefits. DeCormier and U.S. Nursing both appealed to the commissioner,

who affirmed the deputy as to the rate of pay and modified the ruling on the penalty

issue, awarding $5,500 in penalty benefits. U.S. Nursing petitioned for judicial

review, challenging the rate of pay and the penalty. The district court affirmed the

commissioner. And U.S. Nursing appeals.

II. Standard of Review

On questions of law, we review for correction of legal error without

deference to the commissioner. JBS Swift & Co. v. Ochoa, 888 N.W.2d 887,

892–93 (Iowa 2016). On factual questions, we review for substantial evidence; if

a finding is supported by substantial evidence, it binds us. Neal v. Annett Holdings,

Inc., 814 N.W.2d 512, 518 (Iowa 2012). And on questions of applying the facts to 3

the law as vested in the agency, we reverse only if the commissioner’s decision is

irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. Id.

III. Discussion

U.S. Nursing reprises the two claims it made to the district court on judicial

review: that it believes the rate of pay was incorrectly calculated and it should not

have to pay DeCormier penalty benefits. We consider each.

A. Rate of Pay

The parties dispute which part of Iowa Code section 85.36 (2020)—

subsection 6 or 9—governs rate of pay in this case. Subsection 6 applies when

an employee has worked for the employer for more than thirteen weeks preceding

the injury and permits calculation of benefits based on actual hourly rate. Iowa

Code § 85.36(6). Subsection 9 applies when the worker either earned no wages

in the preceding thirteen weeks or earned less than the usual weekly earnings of

a regular full-time adult laborer in her “line of industry” in that locality; it permits

using a yearly average to calculate weekly pay. Iowa Code § 85.36(9).

The deputy commissioner, commissioner, and district court all found

subsection 6 applies because DeCormier was working for U.S. Nursing as a

traveling nurse for not only the ten weeks she had been at the Sioux City hospital

but also on another assignment before that—which ended close in time to her stint

in Sioux City. U.S. Nursing argues to us, as it did below, that subsection 9 should 4

apply.1 The deputy commissioner, commissioner, and district court all rejected this

argument because U.S. Nursing failed to prove either of subsection 9’s factual

predicates: that DeCormier either earned no wages or less than the usual wages

customary in her line of industry. To the contrary, the commissioner found

U.S. Nursing’s own witness confirmed that DeCormier’s “earnings were typical,

customary, or usual for a traveling nurse.”

We agree with the deputy, commissioner, and district court on the facts and

the law. U.S. Nursing did not prove subsection 9 should apply, and the

commissioner’s determination that this pay arrangement is typical in the industry

is supported by substantial record evidence, including DeCormier’s testimony and

that of U.S. Nursing’s witness. While perhaps a counter-argument could be

mounted (or could have been mounted below), it is not our role to decide factual

issues in this case anew. We affirm.

1 As part of this argument, U.S. Nursing points to an unpublished decision involving

a retired worker: Lopez v. Midstates Horse Shows, Inc., No. 08-1714, 2009 WL 3337614 (Iowa Ct. App. Oct. 7, 2009). U.S. Nursing has not consistently described the holding of Lopez, at various points in the litigation claiming it used an “averaging test” or “basically the ‘averaging test.’” In reality, the Lopez court affirmed the commissioner’s decision to rely on subsection (9) “rather than an averaging test.” 2009 WL 3337614, at *6 (emphasis added). We do not think Lopez offers much insight to this case. 5

B. Penalty Benefits

Next, U.S. Nursing asks us to vacate the award of penalty benefits.2 Iowa

Code section 86.13(4)3 permits the commissioner to award penalty benefits when

an employer unreasonably delays in paying the total amount of benefits owed to a

worker. See Robbennolt v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 555 N.W.2d 229, 237

(Iowa 1996). The employer may rebut a worker’s entitlement to penalty benefits if

the employer can show (1) it was conducting a reasonable investigation; (2) the

results of the investigation were the basis for its underpayment; and (3) the

employer contemporaneously conveyed the basis for this position to the worker.

Iowa Code § 86.13(4)(b), (c); see also Pettengill v. Am. Blue Ribbon Holdings,

LLC, 875 N.W.2d 740, 747 (Iowa Ct. App. 2015) (detailing the timeline for making

such a showing).

The commissioner found U.S. Nursing failed to rebut DeCormier’s claim

based on its lack of proof regarding a timely, contemporaneous, and reasonable

investigation and notice of the same. The commissioner awarded penalty benefits

equal to 20% of the delayed or underpaid benefits (less than the permissible 50%).

In doing so, the commissioner made a fact-finding that, for a period of almost eight

2 As a sub-argument concerning penalty benefits, U.S. Nursing asserts a mathematical error in calculating the underpayment, to the tune of $60 per week. But U.S. Nursing never called this alleged error to the commissioner’s attention during the agency proceedings, and neither the judicial-review court nor our court can hear new issues on appeal. See Staff Mgmt. v. Jimenez, 839 N.W.2d 640, 647 (Iowa 2013). 3 This provision was moved to section 10A.315 by the Code Editor in 2023 without

substantive change. 2023 Iowa Acts, ch. 19, §§ 1466, 1467, 1477. 6

months,4 DeCormier “clearly established” underpayment. This shifted the inquiry

to whether U.S. Nursing proved it was conducting a reasonable investigation, that

the investigation was the basis for underpayment, or that it conveyed this

contemporaneously, and the commissioner found U.S. Nursing failed to make this

showing. We agree. U.S. Nursing was the master of its own case on this issue,

and it put forward little if any evidence establishing the basis for any investigation

or related delay, let alone contemporaneous communications, concerning that

eight-month-period. We, like the district court, find the commissioner’s decision to

award penalty benefits is supported by substantial evidence and must be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

4 The commissioner’s appeal decision includes a detailed date-by-date recitation

of events pertinent to this issue in support of his conclusion that U.S. Nursing did not comply with the statute until September 1, 2021. Repeating the numerous dates here would serve no purpose beyond cluttering the opinion.