Murphy v. Thielen Trucking, LC, 010920 IAWC, 5066421

• Case Date: January 09, 2020
• Court: Iowa

DONALD MURPHY, JR., Claimant v. THIELEN TRUCKING, LC, Employer, and, AUTO-OWNERS INSURANCE, Insurance Carrier, Defendants. No. 5066421 Iowa Workers Compensation Before the Iowa Workers' Compensation Commissioner January 9, 2020           ORDER NUNC PRO TUNC           STEPHANIE J. COPLEY DEPUTY WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER          On December 31, 2019, the undersigned filed an arbitration decision in this case. On January 7, 2020, the parties notified me via email that in my decision I sometimes referred to Dr. Sassman when I should have been referring to Dr. Stoken. It is clear I made a scrivener’s error in the body of the decision that can and should be corrected by an order nunc pro tunc.          The phrase, “nunc pro tunc” means “now for then.” See Black’s Law Dictionary, p. 1218 (Revised 4th Edition 1968). The definition further provides: “A phrase applied to acts allowed to be done after the time when they should be done, with a retroactive effect, i.e. with the same effect as if regularly done.” Id. A nunc pro tunc order “is not for the purpose of correcting judicial thinking, a judicial conclusion, or a mistake of law.” Headley v. Headley, 172 N.W.2d 104, 108 (Iowa 1969). The nunc pro tunc order can be employed to correct obvious errors or to make an order conform to the judge’s original intent. Graber v. District Court for Washington City, 410 N.W.2d 224, 229 (Iowa 1987); Brinson v. Spee Dee Delivery Serv., 760 N.W.2d 208 (Iowa Ct.App. 2008) (table). ...