[ellroy2]

I was injured on an out of town job in Iowa. My caseworker with the insurance company informed me that I can file in either Iowa or Missouri(where I live and normally work). He made it seem like Iowa had better laws. How do I compare the two and find out which State would be better? The State websites don't provide a ton of clear information. Thanks

[1171]

there are multiple benefits available under workers comp. some benefits are better in one then the other.
even if one seems better then the other the process may be more cumbersome. there is no easy way to compare as everyone's injury and issues vary greatly.
the carrier and claims handling can make more difference then the benefits.
if the state websites don't help you then contact each state's work comp agency and ask relevant questions. they should be able to phrase it so it's more understandable.

[LeglEgl]

If your Employer is located in Missouri and you reside in Missouri, then the WC claim would be filed in Missouri. The CA doesn't know what they're talking about.

WC is not relative to WHERE the injury took place, but rather WHERE the covered Employer is located.

[1171]

Not totally correct legal.
the least important factor is the location of the employer.
residence and location of injury are cited most often as requirements for jurisdiction.

For Iowa:
Most employees who are injured in Iowa, working under contract of hire made in Iowa, or whose employment is principally localized in Iowa, are eligible for benefits if they have a job-related injury.

http://www.iowaworkforce.org/wc/faq.htm

in many cases there are duplicative jurisdictions and the injured has the option to choose.
often a key factor is whether the treating physician will accept the fee schedule and reporting requirements of the state selected.

[LeglEgl]

(09-24-2011, 02:32 PM)1171 Wrote: For Iowa:
Most employees who are injured in Iowa, working under contract of hire made in Iowa, or whose employment is principally localized in Iowa, are eligible for benefits if they have a job-related injury.

see section 85.71 of the Iowa Code.

And yet you assume that there was a "contract of hire made in Iowa" ? The fact that this employee was working in Iowa for a Missouri Employer does not establish that the "contract of work" was MADE in Iowa. This is a matter of Interstate Commerce (Federal Law) BEFORE it is a matter of Workers Compensation (State Law).

The biggest problem with most people who try to interpret the laws, as they are written, is that they do not take into account that other laws, not related directly to the subject (i.e., Workers Comp) are supersedeas to the code that they are attempting to interpret.

In this case, Interstate Commerce prevails. Since the Employer is in Missouri, and the IW resides in Missouri, it would be concluded that the "contract of hire" was with the COMPANY, not the INDIVIDUAL. The Company, being located in Missouri, enters into any contract of hire within their State of Incorporation, or within the jurisdiction of business practice, said contracts being entered into under the jurisdiction of the laws of that State.

There IS NO "contract of hire" for the INDIVIDUAL unless he is an independent contractor, and agrees to work on a project for a COMPANY located in Iowa. Therefore, under Interstate Commerce, the ER and IW are subject to the jurisdiction of the State of Missouri.

1171 - I respect your opinions and admire your knowledge with regard to sifting through the multitudinous codes and rules of Workers Compensation. In this instance, however, there has been some misinterpretation. The only relationship that can be established where the IW is concerned is between the IW and the ER - both of which are based in Missouri, and not subject to Iowa law where WC is concerned. The IW has NO contractual arrangement with ANYBODY in the State of Iowa.

[1171]

As I read the link (with the last item connected by "or") any of the 3 conditions may confer eligibility.

I realize that an FAQ is not substantive as to the law.
And, I suspect, other relevant details as to how much time was spent by the worker in Iowa as well as where the contract of hire was made and whether the employer has an Iowa operation are likely determinative.

I don't not believe you & I have enough facts to say the case worker's answer was incorrect.

i do know that Iowa exerts a liberal interpretation with regard to both personal and subject matter jurisdiction.

In any event elroy is interested in a comparison of workers comp and not an analysis of the jurisdictional question.

[LeglEgl]

You're reading the code incorrectly. There are only TWO conditions - "under contract of hire" and "employment is principally centralized in Iowa". The first part - "Most employees who are injured in Iowa" - is a leading reference to any employee. That is misleading, yes, but rewording it as "Most Iowa employees who are injured" would lead one to believe it applies to government employees working for the State.

There is no comparison of workers comp when there is only one lawful jurisdiction.

Therefore, the jurisdiction issue is the only issue. Why make a comparison between the two State's benefits, when one won't apply anyway ?

Just to clarify - Iowa law provides for concurrent jurisdiction (where they will accept a WC case from a "foreign" employee) if the worker's employment state permits it. Missouri is an exclusive jurisdiction State, which means that Missouri will retain jurisdiction over the WC claim, since the ER is in MO and the IW resides in MO. Thus, there is no consideration of applying Iowa law to this claim.