The Mystery of the Overdosing Worker Whose Spouse Sought Death Benefits

Can You Solve the Case?

Marion, IA (WorkersCompensation.com) – A case involving an injured employee who tragically died from a drug overdose in 2016 shows how Iowa’s willful injury defense can go either way when the precise manner of death is mysterious.

In Part I of this article, learn what happened. See if you can spot the three major clues that steered this case. Also, watch for the standard of review the court used. In Part II, find out how the court decided and see if you identified the clues and guessed the ending.

Part I

The Death

In November 2012, an employee injured her ankle at work.  Because of the injury, she  developed lower-back pain and depression. The workers' compensation commissioner found she was permanently and totally disabled because of the injury and awarded her workers' compensation benefits.

In September 2016, the employee was home alone when she died from an overdose of prescription drugs she was taking because of the accident. Her estranged husband sought death benefits. But was it suicide? 

If it was suicide, then, under Iowa workers’ compensation law, her husband wasn’t entitled to the benefits. That’s because under Iowa law, "compensation is not allowed for an injury caused by the employee's willful intent to injure the employee's self." Iowa Code § 85.16(1). 

What exactly happened on the night she died was murky, though her employer thought it pretty clear that she had killed herself. After all, she had only recently broken up with her boyfriend.

She was diagnosed with a major depressive disorder starting in 2013. Multiple counseling records said that she had suicidal thoughts several times a week, but that she had "no plans" and "no intent" to act on those thoughts. The records, however, stated that she was at “moderate risk for suicide."

According to the 2016 autoposy report, the manner of death was "undetermined." The police never concluded that the death was a suicide. 

In their investigation, however, the police discovered an undated note in a notebook under a stack of paperwork on the employee’s bed. In the note, she made negative statements about herself, praised her son, and a requested that her friend or mom take care of her "fur babies." The note, referencing her son, ended in the middle of a line and without a punctuation mark: "You have become a strong very proud of you. I wish I could have [. . . ]." 

Her son testified that she had been doing "really well" in the days before her death. He and another friend  who spoke with her the morning she died shared that they were making plans and indeed that the employee had baked cookies just the night before.

The employer sought to overturn the commissioner’s award of death benefits to the husband. Considering the facts, the employer argued, it was clear that the death was no accident. But a state district court disagreed and affirmed the commissioner.

On appeal, the court noted that the wilfull injury defense is an affirmative defense. The employee, therefore, has the burden of establishing it.

Generally speaking, an Iowa court will reverse a commissioner’s decision only if the decision was not supported by “substantial evidence in the record before the court when that record is viewed as a whole." Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f). 

Could the husband collect death benefits?

A. No. The clues indicated the employee was thinking and talking and writing about suicide before her death.

B. Yes. The note was a red herring; other clues showed that it was not a suicide.

Part II will be published on Nov. 8. Check the Daily Headlines then to see the clues and the answer.

Share This Article: