## Facts

- Diane Wilson worked as a housekeeper for Isle of Capri Casino, a riverboat casino and hotel on the Mississippi River.
- Until 2004, the casino regularly took the riverboat on the river because Iowa law required casino riverboats to spend at least 200 hours per year on the water.
- In June 2004, Iowa repealed the 200-hour requirement, and the casino chose to stop making regular trips.
- After regular trips stopped, the casino kept the riverboat ready for water travel: it retained a captain and marine crew, maintained insurance coverage certifying the boat to travel, and could be made ready to leave within about 90 minutes.
- On January 4, 2005, Wilson was injured at work when she slipped on ice while taking trash to the casino’s trash compactor.
- Wilson sought Iowa workers’ compensation benefits.
- The casino denied liability and argued the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission lacked subject-matter jurisdiction because Wilson’s exclusive remedy was under the federal Jones Act if she qualified as a “seaman.”
- A deputy workers’ compensation commissioner found jurisdiction and awarded benefits; the Commission adopted and affirmed that decision.
- The casino filed a petition for judicial review in Iowa district court and also moved to stay enforcement of the workers’ compensation judgment pending judicial review.
- The district court denied the stay.
- The casino appealed the denial of the stay to the Iowa Court of Appeals.
- The Iowa Supreme Court later affirmed the Court of Appeals’ result by a decision without a published opinion, reported as a table disposition at 776 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2009).

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying a stay of enforcement of the workers’ compensation judgment pending judicial review under Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(a) and § 86.26.
2. Whether, for purposes of evaluating the stay request (including likelihood of success on review), the casino raised a substantial legal question that Wilson was a Jones Act seaman because the riverboat remained a “vessel in navigation” at the time of the injury.

## Decision

- The Iowa Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s order denying the stay and remanded with directions consistent with its opinion.
- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed that outcome by table decision at 776 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2009).
- In granting relief, the appellate courts treated the casino’s Jones Act seaman-status argument as a substantial merits question relevant to whether enforcement should be stayed while judicial review proceeded.

## Legal Principles

- Filing a petition for judicial review does not automatically stay enforcement of a workers’ compensation judgment; a stay may be sought under Iowa Code § 17A.19(5)(a) and § 86.26.
- Appellate review of a district court’s ruling on a stay pending judicial review is for abuse of discretion.
- In deciding whether to issue a stay, courts weigh factors comparable to temporary injunctive relief, including likelihood of success on review, irreparable harm to the applicant without a stay, harm to the opposing party, and the public interest.
- Under Iowa precedent, if an employee qualifies as a “seaman” under the federal Jones Act, the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Commission lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the injury claim.
- Jones Act seaman status requires (1) duties contributing to the function or mission of a vessel and (2) a substantial connection in nature and duration to a vessel in navigation.
- A craft may be treated as a “vessel in navigation” even when not making regular trips if it remains practically capable of maritime transportation and has not been withdrawn from service through permanent mooring or a comparable change.

## Conclusion

Isle of Capri Casino v. Wilson, 776 N.W.2d 112 (Iowa 2009) reflects the Iowa Supreme Court’s affirmance (without a published opinion) of a decision reversing the district court’s refusal to stay enforcement of a workers’ compensation judgment while judicial review proceeded. The appellate rulings required the district court to apply the stay standards in light of the casino’s substantial argument that Wilson’s claim fell outside the Commission’s authority because she could qualify as a Jones Act seaman if the riverboat was still a vessel in navigation at the time of her injury.


Isle of Capri Casino v. Wilson, 776 N.W.2d 112 (2009)