Sarah Kingsbury v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa

── Sarah Kingsbury v. Second Injury Fund of Iowa ── Court: Supreme Court of Iowa Date: April 24, 2026 Category: General In the Iowa Supreme Court No. 25–0717 Submitted March 24, 2026—Filed April 24, 2026 Sarah Kingsbury, Appellee, vs. Second Injury Fund of Iowa, Appellant. Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Samantha Gronewald, judge. The Second Injury Fund of Iowa appeals the district court order reversing the dismissal of an injured worker’s claim seeking Second Injury Fund benefits. Reversed and Case Remanded with Instructions. Christensen, C.J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which Mansfield, McDonald, and Oxley, JJ., joined. Waterman, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which McDermott, J., joined. May, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. Brenna Bird, Attorney General; Eric Wessan, Solicitor General; Patrick C. Valencia, Deputy Solicitor General; Halle Kissell (argued), Assistant Solicitor General; and Meredith Cooney, Assistant Attorney General, for appellant. Thomas A. Palmer (argued) of Lawyer, Dougherty & Palmer, PLC, West Des Moines, for appellee. Terri C. Davis and Eric P. Martin of Shuttleworth & Ingersoll, Cedar Rapids, for amicus curiae Iowa Defense Counsel Association.  2 Christensen, Chief Justice. We must determine whether a workers’ compensation claimant may continue to pursue her claim against the Second Injury Fund of Iowa (Fund) after entering a compromise settlement with her employer that did not establish the employer’s liability for the claimant’s injury. Under these circumstances, the answer is no because the claimant’s settlement left her unable to prove that she sustained a work-related, compensable injury for some degree of permanent disability that would trigger Fund liability. Thus, the claimant’s settlement with her employer involves the same subject matter as her claim against the Fund and “constitute[s] a final bar to any further rights arising under” the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Act on this matter under Iowa Code section 85.35(9) (2021).1 We reverse the district court’s ruling to the contrary and remand the case for the entry of an order affirming the commissioner’s decision. I. Background Facts and Proceedings. On August 13, 2021, Sarah Kingsbury sustained a work injury in the course of her employment as a pharmacy technician at Walmart, Inc. (Walmart), when she tripped and fell over a box on the work floor. Following an independent medical evaluation and a period of temporary total disability benefits, Kingsbury filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits on May 4, 2023, against Walmart and its insurer for injuries to her right lower extremity and body as a whole. On December 11, she moved to amend her petition to list the following allegedly disabled body parts: right lower extremity, right shoulder, and body as 1The legislature amended the statute to add a new subsection in 2022, which resulted in renumbering section 85.35(9) to what is now section 85.35(10). See 2022 Acts ch. 1128, § 3 (codified at Iowa Code § 85.35(8) (2023)). We will refer to it as Iowa Code section 85.35(10) in the rest of this opinion.  3 a whole. The deputy workers’ compensation commissioner granted the motion, and on January 4, 2024, Walmart and its insurer filed a notice of intent to settle. The next day, Kingsbury moved to amend her petition to include allegations against the Fund. The amendment also changed Kingsbury’s allegedly disabled parts from “Right Lower Extremity, Right Shoulder and Body as a Whole” in her previous petition to “Right Lower Extremity and Right Shoulder.” Additionally, Kingsbury claimed an alleged date of first loss as 2009 for