Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 85.72 (2026)

Claims for benefits made outside of state — restrictions — credit

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. An employee, or an employee’s dependents, shall not be entitled to benefits under this chapter if the employee or the employee’s dependents have initiated a judicial proceeding or a contested case or other similar proceeding for the same injury, disability, or death pursuant to the laws of another state or country concerning workers’ compensation, and the employee or the employee’s dependents receive benefits following final resolution of the proceeding pursuant to a settlement, judgment, or award.

2. If an employee, or an employee’s dependents, initiate a judicial proceeding or a contested case or other similar proceeding for benefits pursuant to the laws of another state or country concerning workers’ compensation, any proceeding initiated by an employee, or an employee’s dependents, for workers’ compensation benefits under this chapter for the same injury, disability, or death shall be stayed, without prejudice, pending resolution of the out-of-state claim for benefits.

3. If benefits are paid under this chapter and were payable, at any time, for the same injury, disability, or death pursuant to the laws of another state or country concerning workers’ compensation, the employer shall have a credit toward the benefits payable under this chapter for any benefits paid in another state or country. Benefits paid in another state or country constitute weekly compensation benefits for the purposes of sections 10A.315 and 85.26. 97 Acts, ch 106, §2; 2008 Acts, ch 1091, §2\n\nTue Dec 09 22:29:52 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 85 (59, 0) \n

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 2012–2016 · leading case: Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 883 N.W.2d 676 (Neb. 2016).
Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 883 N.W.2d 676 (Neb. 2016). “[Interiano-Lopez] seeks to try this matter in Iowa and is concerned that a judgment rendered in Nebraska could be used as a weapon to prevent a decision being ren- dered in Iowa pursuant to Iowa Code § 85.72 . It is clear that there is concurrent jurisdiction between both Iowa…”
Spencer v. Annett Holdings, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 953 (S.D. Iowa 2012). · cites it 8× “First, Annett claims that during the time of the jurisdictional dispute, any claim for any type of benefits was fairly debatable in light of Iowa Code § 85.72 (2). Def.’s Br. at 43. Second, Annett claims it had the right to undertake a reasonable investigation, and Spencer did…”
Sharon Moad, Individually & as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Douglas Moad, & as Pers. Rep. on Behalf of Travis Moad & Heather Johnson v. Dakota Truck Underwriters, Risk Admin. Servs., Inc., 831 N.W.2d 111 (Iowa 2013). · cites it 2× “Moad notes Iowa Code section 85.72(3) provides that “[bjenefits paid in another state or country constitute weekly compensation benefits for the purposes of sections 85.”
— Iowa Code § 85.72(2) — 1 case
Spencer v. Annett Holdings, Inc., 905 F. Supp. 2d 953 (S.D. Iowa 2012). “First, Annett claims that during the time of the jurisdictional dispute, any claim for any type of benefits was fairly debatable in light of Iowa Code § 85.72 (2). Def.’s Br. at 43. Second, Annett claims it had the right to undertake a reasonable investigation, and Spencer did…”
— Iowa Code § 85.72(3) — 1 case
Sharon Moad, Individually & as Pers. Rep. of the Est. of Douglas Moad, & as Pers. Rep. on Behalf of Travis Moad & Heather Johnson v. Dakota Truck Underwriters, Risk Admin. Servs., Inc., 831 N.W.2d 111 (Iowa 2013). “Moad notes Iowa Code section 85.72(3) provides that “[bjenefits paid in another state or country constitute weekly compensation benefits for the purposes of sections 85.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.