IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 3-408 / 02-1583
Filed August 27, 2003
PATRICIA A. PORAZIL,
            Plaintiff-Appellee,
vs.
IOWA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
 DIVISION, and JACKMAN CORPORATION,
            Defendants-Appellants.
            Appeal from the Iowa District Court for 
Iowa County, William L. Thomas, Judge.
            Jackman Corporation appeals from the district 
court ruling on judicial review reversing the Employment 
Appeal Board’s decision determining a claimant was
 disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation 
benefits.  AFFIRMED.
            Kevin Visser and Brenda Wallrichs of Moyer 
& Bergman, P.L.C., Cedar Rapids, for appellant Jackman 
Corporation.
            Robert F. Wilson, Cedar Rapids, for ap
pellee.
            Considered by Zimmer, P.J., and Hecht and 
Eisenhauer, JJ.
ZIMMER, P.J.
            The Jackman Corporation (Jackman) appeals 
from a district court's ruling on judicial review reversing 
an agency decision denying unemployment benefits to 
former Jackman employee, Patricia Porazil.  Jackman 
contends the Employment Appeal Board’s (Board) decision 
finding that Porazil voluntarily quit is supported
 by substantial evidence.  We affirm the district 
court. 
I.            Background Facts and Proceedings.
            Jackman owns a truck stop and restaurant 
known as the Quarter Post Truck Stop.  Porazil began 
working at the truck stop as a food attendant in April 
1999.  In June 2001, she requested time off to have 
surgery on a non-employment related thumb injury. 
 Jackman informed Porazil she had six weeks and two 
days of leave available under the Family Medical Leave 
Act (FMLA).  Porazil had surgery.  Jackman approved 
FMLA leave and informed Porazil her leave would begin 
on July 13, 2001, and expire on August 28, 2001.  

            On August 16, 2001, Porazil’s treating
 physician released her to work, with restrictions
, effective September 26, 2001.  On August 18, 200Porazil 
1, requested Jackman to extend her leave to September 
26, 2001, in accordance with the work release form
 signed by her physician.  Jackman’s office manager 
responded by letter on August 20, 2001, stating:
We have received your request for an extended leave 
due to surgery.  This request is denied.  The Quarter 
Post is very understaffed at this time and we are running 
ads in the surrounding papers for immediate employment 
to fill the positions.  Due to the fact that you have 
requested another month off and would then only be
 able to return with limitations we can no longer hold 
your position for you.
Because Porazil believed she had already been termshe 
inated, did not contact Jackman following the expiration 
of her FMLA leave or when her physician released her 
for work.
            Porazil filed a claim for unemployment
 benefits with Iowa Workforce Development – Unemployment 
Insurance Division.  The agency granted benefits. 
 Jackman appealed and an administrative law judge reversed 
the agency’s decision.  The administrative law judge 
concluded Porazil was unavailable for employment while 
in her physician’s care and, after being released from 
her physician’s care, voluntarily quit by not returning 
to work.  Porazil sought further review before the
 Board.  Two members of the Board reviewed the recBecause 
ord.  those members were not in agreement, the decision 
of the administrative law judge was affirmed by operation 
of law.  Porazil then sought judicial review and the 
district court reversed, granting her benefits.  Jackman 
appeals.
II.         Scope of Review. 
            Our review of unemployment benefits cases 
is governed by the Iowa Administrative Procedure AIowa 
ct, Code chapter 17A.  Lee v. Employment Appeal Bd
., 616 N.W.2d 661, 664 (Iowa 2000).  The district court 
acts in an appellate capacity to correct errors at
 law on the part of the agency when engaging in judicial 
review under Iowa Code section 17A.19(10) (2001). 
 Holland Bros. Constr. v. Bd. of Tax Review, 611 N
.W.2d 495, 499 (Iowa 2000).
            When we review a district court's judicial 
review decision, we apply the standards of section
 17A.19(10) to determine whether our conclusions are 
identical to those of the district court.  Id.  A party 
challenging agency action bears the burden of demonstrating 
the action's invalidity and resulting prejudice.  Iowa 
Code § 17A.19(8)(a).  This can be shown in a number 
of ways, including proof that the action was ultra
 vires, unconstitutional, legally erroneous, arbitrary 
or capricious.  See generally Iowa Code § 17A.19(1We 
0).  are bound by agency fact findings that are supported 
by substantial evidence.  See Iowa Code § 17A.19(1Norland 
0)(f); v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 412 N.W.2d 904,
 913 (Iowa 1987).  Evidence is substantial when reasonable 
minds could accept it as adequate to reach the same 
finding.  Id.
III.            Discussion.
            Jackman contends the district court exceeded 
its scope of review and substituted its own judgment 
in place of the Board’s.  Jackman argues the Board
’s decision to affirm the denial of benefits is supported 
by substantial evidence.  Specifically, Jackman asserts 
Porazil voluntarily quit without good cause by not
 returning to work on September 20, 2000.[1]
            Under Iowa Code section 96.5(1), a claimant 
is disqualified from collecting unemployment compensation 
benefits if that person has left work without good
 cause attributable to the individual’s employer. 
 However, a person is not disqualified if:
The individual left employment because of illness,
 injury or pregnancy upon the advice of a licensed
 and practicing physician, and upon knowledge of the 
necessity for absence immediately notified the empor 
loyer, the employer consented to the absence, and after 
recovering from the illness, injury, or pregnancy,
 when recovery was certified by a licensed and practicing 
physician, the individual returned to the employer
 and offered to perform services and the individuas 
l’regular work or comparable suitable work was not
 available, if so found by the department, provided 
the individual is otherwise eligible.
Iowa Code § 96.5(1)(d).  
            The administrative law judge concluded
 Porazil voluntarily quit her position by failing to 
inform Jackman she was available for work after her 
physician released her to return to work effective
 September 20, 2001.   On judicial review, the district 
court concluded the administrative law judge’s decision 
was “without basis in the facts of this case.”  The 
district court concluded Porazil was entitled to benefits 
because Jackman had terminated her employment prior 
to the expiration of her original request for leav
e.  
            We conclude the decision of the administrative 
law judge is not supported by substantial evidence
.  Porazil notified Jackman of her impending surgeShe 
ry.  requested and was granted a leave of absence,
 which was scheduled to expire August 28, 2001.  On 
August 16, Porazil’s physician released her to work 
effective September 26, 2001, with lifting restricPorazil 
tions. asked Jackman to extend her leave to September 
26.  On August 20, 2001, Jackman responded with a letter 
terminating Porazil’s employment.  It would be an erroneous 
and unreasonable application of the law to require
 Porazil to report to work on September 20, 2001, the 
actual date of her release to return to work, when
 her employer had already terminated the employment 
relationship.  We affirm the district court’s ruling 
remanding the case to the Board for purposes of determining 
the amount of unemployment compensation owed Poraz
il.
            AFFIRMED.
[1] On September 19, 2001, Porazil’s doctor changed 
her release to work date and released her to employment 
without restrictions effective the next day, September 
20, 2001.