author: VOGEL, J.

text:
    STATE of Iowa, Appellee, v. Steven Dale BRADLEY, Appellant.
    No. 00-0894.
    Court of Appeals of Iowa.
    Aug. 29, 2001.

      Richard R. Hollis, Des Moines, for appellant.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Martha E. Boesen, Assistant Attorney General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and Nan Horvat, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
    Heard by SACKETT, C.J., and VOGEL and ZIMMER, JJ.
   VOGEL, J.

Steven Dale Bradley appeals the district court denial of his petition to stay his restitution obligation and to grant him a restitution hearing pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 910. Because we find the petition did not contain a viable basis to challenge the restitution order, we affirm the district court.

Background Facts and Proceedings. In 1994 Bradley and three co-defendants were charged with two counts of first-degree kidnapping and one count of first-degree murder, based on allegations the four kidnapped and murdered two elderly Des Moines women, Clara Baker and Phyllis King. The murder charge arose out of the death of Baker only, as King was killed in Missouri. Bradley entered into an agreement with the State whereby he would plead guilty to first-degree murder in exchange for dismissal of both kidnapping counts. The plea agreement also stated Bradley would be pleading guilty to first-degree murder in Missouri, for the death of King, in an effort to avoid that state’s death penalty. The State agreed to recommend that the Iowa sentence run concurrent with the one imposed in Missouri. The agreement was silent as to restitution.

At the February 1, 1995, Iowa plea proceedings, Bradley admitted he began his participation in the chain of events with foreknowledge that a co-defendant intended to kill King. He admitted to his voluntary participation in the abductions, acknowledging his understanding that, once Baker had been taken, his co-defendant would kill Baker as well. He then entered a guilty plea to first-degree murder in Iowa for the death of Baker, and the two kidnapping charges were dismissed. Eight days later he entered a guilty plea to first-degree murder in Missouri for the death of King.

On February 10, 1995, the Iowa district court sentenced Bradley to life in prison for Baker’s murder, the sentence to run concurrent with the life sentence imposed in Missouri. The court directed Bradley to pay the fees of his court-appointed attorney to the extent he was reasonably able to do so, assessed him the court costs, and directed him to make restitution in both its written order and oral recitation: “Defendant is ordered to make restitution. The amounts of restitution are not available at this time. At such time as the amounts are available, a supplemental order will follow.”

On October 10, 1997, the State moved to amend Bradley’s sentence to include restitution to the crime victim compensation program: $1,645.65 for payment made to Hamilton’s Funeral Home, and $4,979.50 for payment made to Watts Funeral Home. The court granted the State’s motion, subject to Bradley’s right to object within thirty days. No objection was made. The Department of Correctional Services subsequently entered an amended restitution plan, which included the crime victim assistance payments and $501.82 in court costs. Court-appointed attorney fees were later assessed at $10,503.50.

Bradley filed a pro se petition for a Chapter 910 restitution hearing, which included a request for a stay of his restitution obligation. The original petition, filed April 10, 2000, was supplemented on May 2, 2000. In his petition Bradley forwarded a number of grounds that essentially challenged the propriety of ordering $6,625.15 in restitution to the crime victim compensation program, but arguably directed a vague attack on the court costs and attorney fees as well. The district court denied Bradley’s petition on two grounds, ruling the request untimely, as Bradley failed to object within thirty days to the 1997 supplemental restitution order, and finding the petition failed to establish any legal basis on which to grant the hearing request. It is from this order that Bradley appeals.

Scope of Review. Issues of jurisdiction and the authority of the district court are reviewed for errors at law. State v. Wagner, 596 N.W.2d 83, 85 (Iowa 1999). Decisions regarding sentencing and restitution issues are also reviewed for errors at law, Iowa R.App. P. 4, and are reversed only for a demonstrated abuse of discretion. See State v. Mai, 572 N.W.2d 168, 170 (Iowa Ct.App.1997). However, to the extent any such decision has constitutional implications, our review is de novo. State v. Love, 589 N.W.2d 49, 50 (Iowa 1998).

Chapter 910 Restitution Hearing. Under Iowa Code Chapter 910, a defendant is entitled to a restitution hearing, at any time during the term of incarceration, “if on the face of the petition it appears that a hearing is warranted.” Iowa Code § 910.7 (1999). Thus, denying Bradley’s request solely on the basis he had not objected to the supplemental restitution order in a timely manner was an abuse of discretion by the district court. However, the court also stated the petition did not establish any legal basis to grant a restitution hearing. Bradley contends this second ground was also an abuse of discretion and now forwards a number of reasons why a hearing should have been granted. We note his appellate brief raises issues not present on the face of the pro se petition and greatly expands other arguments that appeared only to a limited extent. Since we are reviewing the district court’s determination that nothing in the petition warranted a restitution hearing, we look only to the contents of the petition, and not to any argument raised for the first time on appeal. See State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997) (“Issues not raised before the district court, including constitutional issues, cannot be raised for the first time on appeal.”)- Before we address Bradley’s contentions, however, we find it necessary to clarify the nature of the restitution ordered by the district court.

I. Distinguishing Pecuniary Damages and Crime Victim Assistance Payments. Restitution is a broadly defined term:

“Restitution” means payment of pecuniary damages to a victim in an amount and in the manner provided by the offender’s plan of restitution. “Restitution” also includes fines, penalties, and surcharges, ... the payment of crime victim compensation program reimbursements, ... court costs ..., court-appointed attorney’s fees, or the expense of a public defender, and the performance of a public service by an offender in an amount set by the court when the offender cannot reasonably pay all or part of the court costs ..., court-appointed attorney’s fees, or the expense of a public defender.

Iowa Code § 910.1(4) (1999). Thus, while payments to the crime victim compensation program and payments to the victim of a crime are both restitution in the general sense, they are distinguishable concepts: Pecuniary damages payable to a victim are afforded a heightened deference in certain respects.

In recognizing that a goal of victim compensation is public protection, see State v. Kluesner, 389 N.W.2d 370, 372 (Iowa 1986), the legislature has dictated that restitution to “victims of the offender’s criminal activities” shall be made in full before payment of any fine, penalty, surcharge, crime victim compensation program disbursement, cost or fee. Iowa Code § 910.2 (1999). See also Iowa Code § 915.100(2)(e) (1999). Moreover, while victim damages and even fines, penalties and surcharges must be paid in full, the legislature placed no such requirement on payments to the crime victim compensation program for any reimbursements it has made. Along with court costs and court-appointed attorney fees, an offender must make restitution to the program only to the extent he or she is reasonably able to do so. Iowa Code § 910.2 (1999).

There is no question that the funeral expenses paid by the crime victim compensation program originated as victim damages. At its core the program is a tool for reimbursing crime victims and their family members for some expenses arising out of certain illegal activities. See generally Iowa Code chapter 915, subchapter VI (1999). The legislature has made it clear, however, that once a victim has been paid by the crime victim compensation program and the offender’s restitution obligation is thereby transferred to the program, the special deference afforded to victim damages is no longer applicable. See Iowa Code §§ 910.2, 915.100(2)(e) (1999).

This special emphasis on victim compensation facilitates another goal of victim restitution — offender rehabilitation. See Kluesner, 389 N.W.2d at 372. Restitution “goes beyond revenue recovery; it is designed to instill responsibility in criminal offenders.” State v. Haines, 360 N.W.2d 791, 795 (Iowa 1985). Forcing a defendant to pay restitution directly to a victim harmed by the offender’s criminal actions has a greater impact upon that defendant than ordering repayment of restitution already made through “an abstract and impersonal entity.” State v. Mayberry, 415 N.W.2d 644, 646-47 (Iowa 1987) (quoting Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U.S. 36, 49 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 353, 360 n. 10, 93 L.Ed.2d 216, 228 n. 10 (1986)).

With the distinction between victim damages and crime victim compensation program reimbursements set forth, we proceed to Bradley’s arguments.

II. Timeliness of Supplemental Order. In order to assure prompt resolution of restitution issues, Iowa Code section 910.3 directs the State to provide, within thirty days of the sentencing date, a statement of any and all victim damages incurred up to the time of sentencing. State v. Blakley, 534 N.W.2d 645, 648 (Iowa 1995). However, as restitution is not inherently finite, and as costs and expenses can continue to accrue after sentencing, that section also provides for supplemental restitution orders, to include any amounts incurred after the sentencing date. See id. The 1997 order that directed restitution payments to the crime victim compensation program was such a supplemental order. See Iowa Code § 910.3 (1999).

In his petition Bradley pointed out the significant length of time between sentene-ing and entry of the supplemental order and argued the State failed to timely provide a statement of damages as required by section 910.3. He now contends the more than two and one-half years of delay between sentencing and the supplemental order rendered the supplemental order untimely and therefore invalid. Although this latter argument was not explicitly stated in the petition, its various elements were present and sufficient to raise the issue for the district court’s consideration.

We agree that the statement of pecuniary damages was not timely filed. The funeral expenses were initially incurred prior to sentencing, in 1994, yet were not reported to the court until the State’s 1997 request. See Blakley, 534 N.W.2d at 648 (indicating the relevant question is when the actual damages were incurred, regardless of when the victim was compensated by the crime victim compensation program). This failure by the State is not an automatic bar to the district court’s order, however, as “the thirty-day requirement in section 910.3 is merely directory and not mandatory.” Id.

While conceding the directory nature of the thirty-day requirement, Bradley argues the extensive delay between sentencing and the supplemental order is nevertheless unreasonable and contravenes the legislative objective that all restitution obligations be promptly determined. See id. Even if such is the case,, the State’s failure to comply with the thirty-day requirement “will not affect the validity of subsequent proceedings unless prejudice is shown.” Id. (quoting Downing v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 415 N.W.2d 625, 628 (Iowa 1987)). See also State v. Blakley, 555 N.W.2d 221, 222 (Iowa 1996) (clarifying that demonstrated prejudice is a factor to be considered by the district court when reviewing a late-submitted statement of damages). Bradley does not attempt to argue the existence of prejudice in his written brief, and during oral argument his counsel conceded no prejudice resulted from the delay. Therefore, to the extent Bradley’s petition for stay and hearing challenged the timeliness of the supplemental restitution order, it was properly denied.

III. Duty to Impose Restitution. Bradley’s petition also contended that the plea agreement’s silence on the issue of restitution deprived the district court of authority to order restitution, including crime victim assistance payments, fees and costs. Bradley claims this silence evinces a mutual intent to waive his reimbursement obligations on these items and that the court was bound to honor the parties’ implicit waiver agreement. This assertion is grounded in his belief the plea agreement was governed by Iowa Rule of Criminal Procedure 9(3), which states:

When the plea agreement is conditioned upon the court’s concurrence, and the court accepts the plea agreement, the court shall inform the defendant that it will embody in the judgment and sentence the disposition provided for in the plea agreement or another disposition more favorable to the defendant than that provided for in the plea agreement. In that event, the court may accept a waiver of the use of the presentence investigation, the right to file a motion in arrest of judgment, and time for entry of judgment, and proceed to judgment.

Iowa R.Crim. P. 9(3). It is Bradley’s contention he conditioned his plea upon the court’s ordering his Iowa life sentence to run concurrent with the sentence imposed in Missouri.

Although the record contains some support for the assertion that Bradley and the State entered into a Rule 9(3) plea, the status of the plea agreement does not bear on the court’s duty to order restitution. In Iowa, imposing restitution is a mandatory obligation of the district court, regardless of how that restitution is classified:

In all criminal cases in which there is a plea of guilty, verdict of guilty, or special verdict upon which a judgment of conviction is rendered, the sentencing court shall order that restitution be made by each offender to the victims of the offender’s criminal activities, to the clerk of court for fines, penalties, surcharges, and, to the extent that the offender is reasonably able to pay, for crime victim assistance reimbursement, ... court costs [and] court-appointed attorney’s fees....

Iowa Code § 910.2 (1999) (emphasis added).

Under section 910.2 the district court does have the power to determine if an item of victim damage is causally related to the offender’s criminal activities, as well as the defendant’s ability to make payment for crime victim assistance disbursements, court costs or attorney fees. See State v. Ihde, 532 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Iowa Ct.App.1995). That section does not, however, grant the court authority to arbitrarily waive imposition of these items. See State v. Jackson, 601 N.W.2d 354, 356 (Iowa 1999) (ordering restitution for court costs mandatory); Walters v. Grossheim, 525 N.W.2d 830, 832 (Iowa 1994) (ordering restitution for victim damages compulsory). Given the mandatory nature of restitution imposition under section 910.2, silence in the plea agreement, standing alone, cannot preclude the district court from ordering restitution to the crime victim compensation program, or for fees and costs.

IV. Jurisdiction to Order Restitution for King’s Funeral Expenses. Bradley concedes that Iowa could have assumed territorial jurisdiction over King’s death, as a crime “committed ... partly within this state.” Iowa Code § 803.1(l)(a) (1999). See also State v. Wedebrand, 602 N.W.2d 186, 189-90 (Iowa Ct.App.1999) (finding Iowa had territorial jurisdiction to charge a defendant with first-degree murder as an aider and abettor of a Minnesota murder, where defendant participated in Iowa beating of kidnapping victim and victim’s transport to Minnesota). It is equally clear that Iowa courts had initial subject matter jurisdiction over any charge arising from King’s death. See Iowa Code § 602.6101 (1999). Bradley argues such jurisdiction was lost, however, once he was charged with King’s murder by the State of Missouri. He contends the Missouri prosecution not only deprived Iowa of jurisdiction to prosecute him for King’s murder, but also of jurisdiction over all related issues, including restitution directly attributable to her death. Although this claim appears only in the appellate brief, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. State v. Moret, 486 N.W.2d 589, 591 (Iowa 1992).

The parties’ arguments broach the threshold question of whether the State’s failure to charge Bradley with King’s murder precludes court-ordered restitution for her funeral expenses. The State focuses on the fact that restitution for victim damages is not limited to convicted offenses, but is available for damages caused by an offender’s “criminal activities,” which include nearly any admitted or uncontested crime, whether or not that crime is ever prosecuted. Iowa Code § 910.1(1) (1999). If the issue before us was centered on victim damages, the State would be correct in its assertion that a preponderance of the evidence demonstrates a causal connection between those damages and Bradley’s criminal acts. See State v. Mai, 572 N.W.2d 168, 171 (Iowa Ct.App.1997).

Here, Bradley has admitted to both the abduction of King with foreknowledge that she would be killed and to aiding and abetting in her murder. King was therefore a victim of Bradley’s “criminal activities,” and the Iowa kidnapping, as well as the Missouri murder, were causally related to the funeral expenses. As such, the funeral bill constitutes pecuniary damages for which an offender must make payment. See State v. Moore, 500 N.W.2d 75, 76 (Iowa 1993). However, in this matter the funeral expenses take the form of crime victim assistance reimbursements. As previously discussed, this form of restitution is separate and distinct from restitution to be made to a victim.

When ordering an offender to pay victim restitution, the district court is charged with finding proximate causation between the offender’s activities and the victim’s damages. See State v. Ihde, 532 N.W.2d 827, 829 (Iowa Ct.App.1995). No such discretion exists in regard to crime victim assistance payments. The district court is not only authorized but mandated to order restitution for these amounts, subject only to the offender’s reasonable ability to pay. Iowa Code § 910.2 (1999).

This is not to say an offender is without power to question the validity of an award made by the crime victim compensation program. Although the decision to award compensation lies with the Iowa Department of Justice, see Iowa Code § 915.81, that decision must be made in compliance with the prevailing law. Thus, a defendant could successfully challenge an order for payment made by the program if such payment was unauthorized by rule or statute. See Iowa Code chapter 915, sub-chapter VI (1999) (governing crime victim compensation program). See also Iowa Admin. Code r. 61-9.1(921)-9.36(915).

The department is directed to award compensation to a crime victim if it is satisfied “that the requirements for compensation have been met.” Iowa Code § 915.81 (1999). Here, kidnapping King constitutes a crime as “conduct that occurs or is attempted in this state, poses a substantial threat of personal injury or death, and is punishable as a felony or misdemeanor.” Iowa Code § 915.80(2) (1999). It is also arguable that Bradley’s actions in Iowa constituted first-degree murder as an aider or abettor. See Wedebrand, 602 N.W.2d at 189-90. Moreover, King is a qualifying victim under Chapter 915 since she died as a result of the acts Bradley committed in Iowa. Iowa Code § 915.80(6) (1999). Thus, the award for her funeral expenses was appropriate within the bounds of the crime victim compensation program. Having found the district court did have the authority to impose these amounts, we turn to the question of whether the district court’s jurisdiction was nevertheless usurped by Missouri when that state commenced its prosecution for King’s murder.

In support of his position Bradley directs us to a number of civil cases from other states. Those cases found, in instances of concurrent jurisdiction, that whichever tribunal first obtained jurisdiction would retain such jurisdiction to the exclusion of the other. See, e.g., Walker v. McNutt, 165 Kan. 533, 196 P.2d 163, 168-69 (1948). While such holdings are an accurate reflection of the principal of comity in civil matters, they are rooted in the concept that at any given time only one judicial body may have jurisdiction over a single cause, act or matter. In contrast, criminal prosecutions are not necessarily confined to one jurisdiction, as a single act can constitute multiple criminal offenses.

When assessing jurisdiction in criminal matters, courts are governed by the concept of dual sovereignty. Under that doctrine, even if we assume the elements of first-degree murder in Missouri are identical to those of the charge of murder that could have been brought against Bradley in Iowa, each state was free to prosecute the crime without regard to the other. See Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 82, 88, 106 S.Ct. 433, 437, 88 L.Ed.2d 387, 394 (1985). In defining its own criminal code, each state exercises its own sovereignty when determining what acts will constitute “an offense against its peace and dignity-” Id. at 89, 106 S.Ct. at 437-38, 88 L.Ed.2d at 394-95. Therefore, a single act delineated a crime by two different states is an offense against each, and may be punished by both. Id.

Enforcing its own criminal laws is a primary function of a state’s sovereignty:

To deny a State its power to enforce its criminal laws because another State has won the race to the courthouse “would be a shocking and untoward deprivation of the historic right and obligation of the States to maintain peace and order within their confines.” Bartkus [v. People of State of Ill.], 359 U.S. [121], at 137, 79 S.Ct. [676], at 685[, 3 L.Ed.2d 684](1959).
Such a deprivation of a State’s sovereign powers cannot be justified by the assertion that under “interest analysis” the State’s legitimate penal interests will be satisfied through a prosecution conducted by another State. A State’s interest in vindicating its sovereign authority through enforcement of its laws by definition can never be satisfied by another State’s enforcement of its own laws. Just as the Federal Government has the right to decide that a state prosecution has not vindicated a violation of the “peace and dignity” of the Federal Government, a State must be entitled to decide that a prosecution by another State has not satisfied its legitimate sovereign interest. In recognition of this fact, the Court consistently has endorsed the principle that a single act constitutes an “offence” against each sovereign whose laws are violated by that act.

Id. at 93, 106 S.Ct. at 440, 88 L.Ed.2d at 397.

Clearly, under the holding of Heath and the principle of dual sovereignty, Missouri’s prosecution for King’s killing would not have barred Iowa’s prosecution of Bradley for her murder. Even though Heath was decided within the context of the double jeopardy clause, the rationale of the dual sovereignty doctrine is equally applicable to the concept that courts of one jurisdiction must give full faith and credit to decisions and judgments by a court of a separate and independent jurisdiction. See Turley v. Wyrick, 554 F.2d 840, 842 (8th Cir.1977) (finding prosecution by a state following a federal acquittal did not deny full faith and credit to the decision of the federal court). By extension, Missouri’s prosecution cannot stand as a bar to Iowa’s enforcement of its own laws governing restitution by criminal offenders.

V. Reasonable Ability to Pay. Bradley now argues that the district court failed to determine his reasonable ability to pay costs, attorney fees and crime victim compensation program reimbursements. As this claim was not forwarded in his petition as a ground for granting his hearing request, it cannot now be urged as a reason why a Chapter 910 hearing should have been granted. See State v. McCright, 569 N.W.2d 605, 607 (Iowa 1997).

VI. Inmate Account Deductions. Bradley also forwards a claim that the restitution order will have the likely effect of taking money from his inmate account, in violation of his right to due process. Assuming the due process allegations in his petition were sufficiently specific to raise this particular argument, it is without merit. Bradley relies on Walters v. Grossheim, 525 N.W.2d 830 (Iowa 1994), for the proposition that he has a property interest in all funds in his inmate account and that any deductions of any of these funds without a prior Chapter 910 hearing will violate his constitutional right to due process.

This is a misstatement of the law, as Walters stands for the limited proposition that non-wage assets in an inmate account are accorded pre-deprivation due process protections, protections above and beyond what the Iowa Code provides in regard to prison wages. Walters, 525 N.W.2d at 832-33. The rationale underlying the Walters decision is keyed to the facts and circumstances surrounding withdrawal of non-wage funds from an inmate account and requires only a limited, administrative procedure. Id. See also State v. Love, 589 N.W.2d 49, 51-52 (Iowa 1998) (verifying that prisoners do not have a constitutional right to retain full amount of prison wages, and are not entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing regarding statutory deductions from such funds). It is not, as defendant suggests, a basis for granting a Chapter 910 restitution hearing, particularly when there is no allegation of any non-wage asset deprivation.

VII. Reasonableness of Funeral Expenses. Bradley also argues that the disparity in cost between the two funerals raises an inference that one bill is unreasonably high. This argument may provide a valid basis for setting a restitution hearing, but the district court’s denial of such a hearing was an abuse of discretion only if the argument appeared on the face of the hearing request. The only references in the petition that can be construed in support of such an argument are the following: “no temporary order of a reasonable amount was given at time of sentencing” and “there was no itemized statement given at the time of sentencing or after and ... there is no reason why the Court should not have given a temporary order of restitution for ‘ALL’ restitu-tions to be paid, rendering a reasonable amount.” (emphasis added).

Although both statements do address the reasonableness of the restitution amount, it strains the bounds of legal construction to say these two generalized references equate to a reasonableness challenge appearing on the face of the hearing petition. When read in conjunction with the remainder of the motion, the gist of both claims is the district court’s alleged failure to enter a “temporary” restitution order at the time of sentencing, an allegation without basis, as the sentencing order clearly required payment of restitution in general, attorney fees and court costs in particular. We cannot say the district court abused its discretion by failing to interpret the hearing request as contending the funeral expenses to be unreasonably high.

Conclusion. The district court was required to set a restitution hearing only if it appeared from the face of the petition that such a hearing was warranted. None of the above arguments establish Bradley’s right to a hearing, nor does any other ground forwarded in the petition provide such a basis. We therefore find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s denial of Bradley’s hearing request.

AFFIRMED.

ZIMMER concurs; SACKETT, C.J. concurs specially without opinion.

      . Given the involvement of two separate funeral homes, it would appear that one of these bills is for the funeral expense of Baker and the other for the funeral expenses of King. There is no indication which bill might be attributable to which victim.

      . It is arguable that the crime victim compensation program meets the definition of a victim. See Iowa Code § 910.1(5) (1999). However, as will be discussed, the remainder of the statutory provisions dealing with the issue of restitution indicate that offender restitution to the program is separate and distinct from restitution owed to "a person who has suffered pecuniary damages as a result of the offender's criminal activities.” Id.

      . That section specifically states, in pertinent part:
      The county attorney shall prepare a statement of pecuniary damages to victims of the defendant and, if applicable, any award by the crime victim compensation program ..., and shall provide the statement to the presentence investigator or submit the statement to the court at the time of sentencing. ... If pecuniary damage amounts are not available at the time of sentencing, the county attorney shall provide a statement of pecuniary damages incurred up to that time to the clerk of court. The statement shall be provided no later than thirty days after sentencing.... If the full amount of restitution cannot be determined at the time of sentencing, the court shall issue a temporary order determining a reasonable amount for restitution identified up to that time. At a later date as determined by the court, the court shall issue a permanent, supplemental order, setting the full amount of restitution. The court shall enter further supplemental orders, if necessary.
      Iowa Code § 910.3 (1999).

      . Attached to the State's "Motion to Amend Sentence to Include Restitution to Crime Victim Assistance Program” were two "Summary of Payments Requested,” one for each funeral home bill. Each summary contained a claim number and listed July 20, 1994 as the relevant date.

      . This is not to say that silence in the plea agreement can never impact on restitution. In State v. Petrie, 478 N.W.2d 620 (Iowa 1991), the Iowa Supreme Court held a defendant could be assessed only that portion of the prosecution expenses, such as court costs and attorney fees, which were attributable to the charge on which he was convicted. Petrie, 478 N.W.2d at 622. This rule has no impact on Bradley, however, as the connection between Baker's murder and the total fees and costs later assessed was not put in issue. Nor is it relevant to payment of King’s funeral expenses, despite the arguable disconnect between these expenses and Bradley's conviction for Baker's murder.

        Petrie turned on the language of Iowa Code § 815.13, which specifically prohibits collection of prosecution expenses if "the defendant is found not guilty or the action is dismissed-” Iowa Code § 815.13 (1989). Accord Iowa Code § 815.13 (1999). By its very terms, this section applies only to expenses incurred in prosecution of the charge, and in no way addresses crime victim assistance payments. Nor does any other Code section require a causal connection between crime victim assistance payments and a defendant’s conviction.

      . Bradley's hearing petition claimed only "that since the State of Iowa ran their sentence concurrent with the State of Missouri that they gave up jurisdiction to collect restitution.”

      . The Double Jeopardy Clause provides, in relevant part: "[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be put twice in jeopardy of life or limb...." U.S. Const, amend. V.

      . "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State.” U.S. Const, art. IV, § 1.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: LANCASTER, Justice. BLATZ, Chief Justice

license: Public Domain

text:
    Marguerite ANDERSON-JOHANNINGMEIER, et al., Petitioners, Appellants, v. MID-MINNESOTA WOMEN’S CENTER, INC., et al., Respondents.
    No. C0-00-164.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    Jan. 3, 2002.
    Judith K. Schermer, Schermer & Guy, PLLP, Minneapolis, for appellants.
    Kay Nord Hunt, Stephen C. Rathke, Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, PA, Minneapolis, for respondents.
    Douglas A. Hedin, Hedin & Goldberg, PA, Minneapolis, for amicus curiae Nat. Employment Lawyers Ass’n.
    Heard, considered, and decided by the court en banc.
   OPINION

LANCASTER, Justice.

The issue before us is one of statutory construction. After appellants were feed, they alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute, Minn.Stat. § 181.932, subd. 1(a) (1996), based on their questioning whether another employee was entitled to vacation pay under the wage and hour laws. After a jury trial, the district court granted judgment notwithstanding the verdict to respondents because the vacation pay practices in this case affected only respondents’ employees and thus did not implicate public policy. The court of appeals affirmed, holding that appellants had not demonstrated that their report implicated public policy. Anderson-Johanningmeier v. Mid-Minnesota Women’s Ctr., Inc., No. C0-00-164, 2000 WL 1869555, at *1 (Minn. App. Dec. 26, 2000). We must determine whether the protections of the whistle-blower statute extend only to employees whose reports of a violation or suspected violation of law implicate public policy. We hold that the whistleblower statute is not so limited and reverse.

Mid-Minnesota Women’s Center (MMWC) is a shelter for abused women and their children located in Brainerd, Minnesota. Respondent Louise Seliski has served as MMWC’s executive director since 1978. Appellant Kathy Delaney was assistant director and appellant Barb Mor-rell served as secretary/bookkeeper and administrative assistant. Morrell reported to Delaney. Delaney reported to Seliski. Seliski reported to MMWC’s Board of Directors.

In 1995, Delaney approved a request for vacation time submitted by MMWC women’s advocate Jennifer Cline. On June 23, 1995, after the approval, Cline submitted her resignation. Cline then took the approved vacation time but returned to work at MMWC for a few days before her employment ended.

On July 10, 1995, while reviewing records to approve the payroll, Seliski questioned Morrell about Cline’s vacation pay, conveying to Morrell that Seliski believed that Cline was not entitled to the vacation pay under MMWC policy. Seliski told Morrell not to pay Cline’s vacation time. Morrell responded that she did not believe that the MMWC policy barred payment of Cline’s vacation time.

After the conversation with Seliski, Mor-rell told Delaney that Seliski expected Morrell to participate in an illegal activity to keep her job. Morrell decided to call the Minnesota Department of Labor and Industry because “[she] didn’t know what law was being broken but [she] really felt that this — this couldn’t possibly be legal not to pay something because the policy simply didn’t address the issue at all.” Delaney supported Morrell’s decision to call the labor department. In the telephone call to the labor department, Mor-rell gave her name, MMWC’s name and location, Seliski’s name, the circumstances regarding Cline’s vacation pay, and the MMWC policy Seliski cited as reason to refuse Cline’s vacation pay. The labor department employee said that MMWC needed to pay Cline and that if MMWC did not pay her, Cline would win if she sought compensation for the vacation time.

Still on July 10, 1995, Morrell told Seli-ski that she had called the labor department and that MMWC had to pay Cline. Seliski responded that MMWC policy did not allow her to authorize payment to Cline, but said that she would seek authorization from MMWC’s board to do so.

On July 11, 1995, Delaney met with Seli-ski and told Seliski that it was illegal not to pay Cline. Seliski responded that she did not have the authority to pay Cline’s vacation time. After Delaney and Seliski met, Seliski asked Morrell why Delaney was involved in the issue of Cline’s vacation pay. Seliski suggested that Morrell and Delaney were “trashing” her, and told Morrell not to call the labor department again without consulting her.

After the conversations with Seliski on July 10 and 11, 1995, Morrell and Delaney claimed that their employment conditions changed for the worse. Morrell described the work atmosphere as “very hostile.”

In November 1995, Seliski discussed restructuring the MMWC staff. She talked about using restructuring to terminate employees and told a staff member that she was going to terminate the troublemakers in the course of the staff reorganization. Concerned about the atmosphere at MMWC, Morrell submitted a letter to Seli-ski on December 1, 1995, in which Morrell complained about several issues, among them the events surrounding Cline’s vacation pay. Delaney also submitted a letter to Seliski on December 1, 1995, in which Delaney complained about Seliski.

On December 4, 1995, the MMWC board met and eliminated the positions held by Morrell and Delaney. Less than one year later, six former employees of MMWC, including Morrell and Delaney, filed a complaint against MMWC and Seliski alleging negligent retention, negligent supervision, violation of the whistleblower statute, violation of the Minnesota Human Rights Act (MHRA), interference with contractual relations, and denial of benefits in violation of the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act. Some counts were asserted by all six former employees; the remaining counts were asserted by subsets of them. On September 30, 1998, the district court granted in part and denied in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment. Morrell’s whistle-blower claim and a subset of the MHRA claims survived.

In October 1998, on the first day of trial of the whistleblower claim, the district court determined that Delaney was also a plaintiff. At the close of evidence, the jury was asked to decide whether Morrell or Delaney “in good faith, reported] a violation or a suspected violation of a law or rule governing the payment of vacation pay to her employer or to * * * the Minnesota Department of Labor,” and whether the report was a motivating factor in MMWC’s or Seliski’s decisions to terminate their employment. The jury returned a special verdict finding that Mor-rell and Delaney each made such a report, but that the reports were not a motivating factor in MMWC’s decisions to terminate them. The jury found the reports were, however, a motivating factor in Seliski’s decisions to terminate them. The jury awarded $55,000 to Morrell and $33,000 to Delaney for lost earnings and embarrassment and emotional distress.

Respondents moved for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on the grounds that: (1) no law governs vacation pay; (2) appellants’ reports did not implicate public policy; (3) Delaney did not make a report; (4) Seliski is not an employer; and (5) no causal connection existed between the controversy surrounding Cline’s vacation pay and the decisions to terminate appellants. The district court entered judgment notwithstanding the verdict, citing Donahue v. Schwegman, Lundberg, Woessner & Kluth, P.A., 586 N.W.2d 811 (Minn.App.1998), rev. denied (Minn. Feb. 18, 1999):

Like the payroll practices in Donahue the vacation pay practices in this case only affect the employees of the entities involved in the case. Under the standards enunciated in Donahue such internal practices, even if illegal, do not implicate public policy and as a matter of law Plaintiff[s’] whistleblower[ ] claims must fail.

The district court did not address respondents’ alternative grounds for judgment notwithstanding the verdict. The court of appeals affirmed on the basis that appellants did not demonstrate that their reports implicated public policy. Anderson-Johanningmeier, 2000 WL 1869555, at *1. In other words, the court of appeals found that the whistleblower statute’s prohibition of adverse employment actions in response to an employee’s report of a violation of law applies only when the employee’s report implicates public policy.

A district court’s grant of judgment notwithstanding the verdict “is a question of law subject to de novo review.” Diesen v. Hessburg, 455 N.W.2d 446, 449 (Minn.1990). Statutory construction is also a question of law subject to de novo review. Wilson v. Comm’r of Revenue, 619 N.W.2d 194, 197-98 (Minn.2000).

Respondents maintain that the whistleblower statute contains a public policy requirement, reading the statute in harmony with the public policy exception to the employment at-will doctrine. Traditionally, an “employer-employee relationship is terminable at the will of either; the employer can summarily dismiss the employee, the employee is under no obligation to remain at the job.” Cederstrand v. Lutheran Bhd., 263 Minn. 520, 532, 117 N.W.2d 213, 221 (1962). Under the employment at-will doctrine, an employer can discharge an employee for any reason or for no reason. Pine River State Bank v. Mettille, 333 N.W.2d 622, 627 (Minn.1983). The court of appeals recognized an exception to the employment at-will doctrine when an employer discharges an employee for reasons that contravene a clear mandate of public policy. Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 396 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Minn.App.1986), aff'd, 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn.1987). We granted the petition for review of Phipps, but in the interval between oral argument and the release of our opinion, the legislature enacted the whistleblower statute. Phipps, 408 N.W.2d at 571. We, therefore, did not resolve whether Minnesota should join the majority of states that had recognized a cause of action for wrongful discharge. Id. We agreed, however, that the common law protects those fired for their refusal to violate the law. Id. Thus, respondents argue that recognition of a public policy requirement in the whistleblower statute is consistent with the common law.

When we interpret a statute, we must “ascertain and effectuate the intention of the legislature.” Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (2000); Burkstrand v. Burkstrand, 632 N.W.2d 206, 209 (Minn.2001). We will not disregard the words of a statute if they are free from ambiguity. Minn.Stat. § 645.16; Group Health Plan, Inc. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 621 N.W.2d 2, 9 (Minn.2001). Thus, we begin our analysis with the statutory language. Section 181.932, subd. 1(a), states:

An employer shall not discharge, discipline, threaten, otherwise discriminate against, or penalize an employee regarding the employee’s compensation, terms, conditions, location, or privileges of employment because:
(a) the employee, or a person acting on behalf of an employee, in good faith, reports a violation or suspected violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law to an employer or to any governmental body or law enforcement official!.]

We repeat here what we stated three years ago: “We conclude that [section 181.932, subd. 1(a) ] clearly and unambiguously protects reports made of a violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law.” Hedglin v. City of Willmar, 582 N.W.2d 897, 901-02 (Minn.1998). It does not contain an explicit public policy requirement.

Respondents argue that the whistleblower statute’s development in case law and statutory amendments reveals that, although it did not explicitly do so, the legislature intended that the statute include a public policy requirement. To address this argument, we review the relevant statutory developments and case law, much of which is in the Minnesota Court of Appeals.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals, as we have noted, recognized a public policy exception to employment at-will before the legislature enacted the whistleblower statute. See Act of May 11, 1987, ch. 76, 1987 Minn. Laws 140 (codified as amended at Minn.Stat. §§ 181.931-.935 (2000)); Phipps, 396 N.W.2d at 592. Almost three years after Phipps, the court of appeals revisited the public policy exception to employment at-will in a case in which an employer eliminated an employee’s position after the employee reported alleged travel and expense improprieties. Vonch v. Carlson Cos., 439 N.W.2d 406, 407 (Minn.App.), rev. denied (Minn. July 12, 1989). Although the case was not brought under the whistleblower statute, the court of appeals cited the statute and concluded that the public policy exception to at-will employment protects the general public and that “[t]he public does not have an interest in a business’s internal management problems.” Vonch, 439 N.W.2d at 407-08. In several cases, federal courts cited Vonch as an interpretation of the whistleblower statute. See Nichols v. Metro. Ctr. for Indep. Living, Inc., 50 F.3d 514, 517 (8th Cir.1995); Morrow v. Air Methods, Inc., 884 F.Supp. 1353, 1358 (D.Minn.1995); Thompson v. Campbell, 845 F.Supp. 665, 675 n. 9 (D.Minn.1994); Petroskey v. Lommen, Nelson, Cole & Stageberg, P.A., 847 F.Supp. 1437, 1447 (D.Minn.), aff'd, 40 F.3d 278 (8th Cir.1994).

We addressed a statutory whistleblower claim in Williams v. St. Paul Ramsey Medical Center, Inc., 551 N.W.2d 483 (Minn.1996). We held in Williams that the exclusivity provision of the MHRA barred a separate claim under section 181.932. Williams, 551 N.W.2d at 486. In a footnote, we described section 181.932:

The popular title of the [Whistleblower] Act connotes an action by a neutral— one who is not personally and uniquely affronted by the employer’s unlawful conduct but rather one who “blows the whistle” for the protection of the general public or, at the least, some third person or persons in addition to the whistle-blower. Were it otherwise, every allegedly wrongful termination of employment could, with a bit of ingenuity, be cast as a claim pursuant to MinmStat. § 181.932 (1994). Because this case was tried and decided on the basis of exclusivity, we have no occasion to rule on the validity of the cause of action asserted as a whistleblower’s claim in Williams’ complaint, but we could, in the alternative, have ruled that no such cause of action exists here.

Williams, 551 N.W.2d at 484 n. 1.

In 1998, we decided Hedglin. A quote from section 181.932, subd. 1(a), in which we italicized the word “any,” began our analysis:

The whistleblower statute protects reports made in good faith of “a violation or suspected violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law.” We conclude that this language clearly and unambiguously protects reports made of a violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law.

Hedglin, 582 N.W.2d at 901-02 (citation omitted). We explicitly rejected reliance on Vonch and Williams to “read any additional requirement into the whistleblower statute.” Hedglin, 582 N.W.2d at 902. Because section 181.932 was not in effect at the time of the employee’s report or discharge in Vonch, we concluded that “any statements made by the Vonch court do not apply to claims brought specifically under the statute.” Hedglin, 582 N.W.2d at 903. We reiterated the caution expressed in Williams against construing section 181.932 too broadly, but noted that the caution in Williams was dictum. Hedglin, 582 N.W.2d at 903. Although we held that section 181.932, subd. 1(a), “by its plain language, protects reports made of a violation of any state or federal law or rule adopted pursuant to law,” we explicitly declined to decide whether the public policy requirement applied to section 181.932 because the reports at issue in Hedglin implicated public policy. Hedglin, 582 N.W.2d at 903.

One month after we decided Hedglin, the court of appeals addressed the issue we reserved in Hedglin. Bertagnoli v. Carlson Mktg. Group, Inc., No. C6-98-541, 1998 WL 665085 (Minn.App. Sept. 18, 1998), rev. denied (Minn. Nov. 17, 1998). Based on its plain language, the court of appeals held that the whistleblower statute does not contain a public policy requirement. Bertagnoli, 1998 WL 665085, at *5. Three months after Bertagnoli, a different panel of the court of appeals held otherwise in a decision relied on by the district court here: “Because interpreting the whistleblower statute to include a public policy requirement supports Minnesota’s careful limitation of at-will employment exceptions to further public interest, we also conclude [the employee’s] failure to report a practice that implicates public policy leaves her unprotected by the whistleblower statute.” Donahue, 586 N.W.2d at 814. The employee argued that she reported, in good faith, a statutory violation, “and, because all statutes are designed to protect the public, her report involved the public interest.” Id. The court rejected this argument:

[A]lthough the legislature intended the whistleblower statute to bring sweeping protection to employees who report wrongdoing by employers, we do not believe the intent was to obliterate employment at-will. Instead, both the common-law public policy exception and the whistleblower statute only protect employees who expose violations of law designed to promote the public’s morals, health, safety and welfare.

Donahue, 586 N.W.2d at 814.

Five months after the court of appeals released Donahue, the legislature amended section 181.932, subd. 2 (1998), to classify the identity of an employee making a report to a governmental body as “private data on individuals.” Act of May 25, 1999, ch. 227, § 14, 1999 Minn. Laws 1609, 1615 16. The amendment did not change section 181.932, subd. 1(a).

Based on the fact that the legislature did not amend section 181.932, subd. 1(a), after Donahue, respondents argue that it is the legislature’s intent that a report under the whistleblower statute must implicate public policy. “When a court of last resort has construed the language of a law, the legislature in subsequent laws on the same subject matter intends the same construction to be placed upon such language.” Minn.Stat. § 645.17(4) (2000). The court of appeals, however, is not the court of last resort with respect to a statute’s construction. See Wilson, 619 N.W.2d at 197-98 (stating that statutory construction is a question of law subject to de novo review); McClain v. Begley, 465 N.W.2d 680, 682 (Minn.1991) (stating that the supreme court “is not bound by the decision of the court of appeals” on a question of law). Therefore, the principle of statutory construction embodied in section 645.17(4) does not apply to the court of appeals’ interpretation of the whistleblower statute in Donahue.

Nonetheless, respondents maintain that because we denied review of Donahue before the 1999 amendment, the legislature could have viewed Donahue as a definitive interpretation of section 181.932, subd. 1(a). However, when this court denies a petition for review, the court “may agree with the result below but not its reasoning, or vice versa, or neither, or may agree with both the result and the reasoning.” Murphy v. Milbank Mut. Ins. Co., 388 N.W.2d 732, 739 (Minn.1986). That we denied review of Donahue does not give it “any more or less precedential weight than a court of appeals decision from which no review was sought.” Murphy, 388 N.W.2d at 739.

In addition, our 1998 decision in Hedg-lin would have alerted the legislature that we would not necessarily find Donahue persuasive. Had the legislature disagreed with our statements in Hedglin concerning the scope of section 181.932, subd. 1(a), the legislature could have amended the statute in 1999. Instead, the legislature made no change to subdivision 1(a) when it amended section 181.932 that year. See 1999 Minn. Laws 1615-16. Finally, respondents’ argument ignores the conflicting interpretations that confronted the legislature in 1999 in the Bertagnoli and Donahue decisions. There is simply no basis to assume that the legislature intended to impose a public policy requirement based on the court of appeals’ decision in Donahue.

We acknowledge the possibility that the legislature enacted section 181.932, subd. 1(a), to codify the court of appeals’ decision in Phipps. However, we are not free to disregard the words of a statute “under the pretext of pursuing the spirit” if the words are free from ambiguity. Minn. Stat. § 645.16; Group Health Plan, 621 N.W.2d at 9. Because section 181.932, subd. 1(a), clearly and unambiguously protects reports made of a violation of any federal or state law or rule adopted pursuant to law, we will not look beyond its text to search for an unexpressed public policy requirement.

Respondents also rely on Ly v. Nystrom, 615 N.W.2d 302 (Minn.2000), to support reading a public policy requirement into the whistleblower statute. In Ly, we interpreted the private attorney general (AG) statute, which allows persons injured by a violation of laws entrusted for enforcement to the attorney general to bring actions under those laws and recover damages together with costs and attorney fees. See Minn.Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a (2000). We held that the private AG statute applies only to those claimants who demonstrate that their cause of action benefits the public. Ly, 615 N.W.2d at 314. Our holding, therefore, limited the scope of the private AG statute from “any person” injured by a violation of certain laws to those “who demonstrate thdt their cause of action benefits the public.” Ly, 615 N.W.2d at 314. Respondents ask us to find a similar limitation in the whistleblower statute.

We are not persuaded by respondents’ reliance on Ly. In Ly, we stated: “Since the Private AG Statute grants private citizens the right to act as a ‘private’ attorney general, the role and duties of the attorney general with respect to enforcing the fraudulent business practices laws must define the limits of the private claimant under the statute.” Ly, 615 N.W.2d at 313. “The duty of the attorney general’s office * * * is the protection of public rights and the preservation of the interests of the state.” Id. Consequently, claimants under the private AG statute must show that their cause of action benefits the public. Ly, 615 N.W.2d at 313. A claimant under the whistleblower statute, however, does not act as a private attorney general. Thus, the role and duties of the attorney general do not constrain such a claimant. Therefore, we do not find respondents’ reliance on Ly persuasive.

Finally, respondents argue that in the absence of a public policy requirement to a whistleblower claim, a lawsuit or threatened lawsuit could occur every time an employee is terminated. Section 181.932, subd. 1(a), contains a good faith requirement, however, which serves to limit the nature of actionable claims. Id.; Obst v. Microtron, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 196, 202 (Minn.2000); see also, Herman v. Dep’t of Justice, 193 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed.Cir.1999) (interpreting the federal Whistleblower Protection Act and holding that an employee could not have had a reasonable belief that an agency violated a law, rale, or regulation because the agency’s actions were trivial); Frederick v. Dep’t of Justice, 73 F.3d 349, 353 (Fed.Cir.1996) (“[T]he alleged action by [the agent] was of such a trivial nature that [the whistleblower] could not have had a reasonable belief that [the agent] was violating a law, rule, or regulation within the meaning of the [federal Whistleblower Protection Act].”).

In sum, we reject the importation of a public policy requirement into the whistle-blower statute and hold that the protections of section 181.932, subd. 1(a), are not limited to reports that implicate public policy. Because the lower courts did not address respondents’ alternative grounds for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we remand the case to the district court.

Reversed and remanded.

BLATZ, Chief Justice

(concurring).

While I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the majority opinion, I write separately to underscore my concern regarding respondents’ request to have a public policy requirement read into the whistleblower statute. The respondents contend that a public policy requirement is needed because, without one, an employee’s “mere internal dispute over matters of office and personnel management can easily be recast as a [whistleblower] claim,” forcing courts into the role of “super-personnel departments.” That, indeed, is a risk that may loom on the horizon. But standing in its shadows is a risk that I believe could present even greater challenges to the judiciary — and that is the risk of being saddled with the ultimate responsibility for determining what employers’ decisions contravene “a clear mandate of public policy.” See Phipps v. Clark Oil & Ref. Corp., 396 N.W.2d 588, 592 (Minn.App.1986), aff'd, 408 N.W.2d 569 (Minn.1987).

In their argument that a public policy requirement is embodied in the whistle-blower statute, the respondents suggest that it is “naive” to conclude that “all laws and regulations” should create whistle-blower liability. For this proposition, the respondents rely on, and liberally quote from, an article cited by the court of appeals in a special concurrence. See Bertagnoli v. Carlson Mktg. Group, Inc., No. C6-98-541, 1998 WL 665085, at *5 (Minn.App. Sept. 18, 1998) (Short, J., concurring specially) (citing James H. Raster, Putting “Public Policy” Back into Minnesota’s Whistleblower Statute, Hennepin Law., June 1998, at 4-5). When discussing the “whistle-blower dilemma,” the author of the article, James Raster, notes that “[l]aws and regulations are passed for less-than-noble reasons all the time. Sometimes it is difficult to see the health, safety, and welfare reasons behind certain pork-barrel legislation.” Raster, at 7. Building upon this observation, respondents embrace a public policy requirement and assert that “it is not difficult to distinguish between situations which involve only the private * * * interests of the employer-employee relationship and those situations involving the direct interests of the general public — i.e., matters dealing with public morals, health, safety and welfare.”

The respondents’ confidence that such lines of demarcation can be so easily drawn minimizes the difficulty of the responsibility they are urging upon the courts. Recognizing that much legislation is hotly contested, are the courts to sit as a “super legislature” to pass muster on the worthiness of a law? And in divining what laws in fact do not embody public policy, will the courts become an unwitting partner with a minority of legislators who were unsuccessful in their attempts to block a bill’s passage? These concerns — in conjunction with an appreciation that what one court may view as “pork” may be gruel in the eyes of legislators working on behalf of their constituents — give me great pause. While we will defer to the legislature’s wisdom in deciding how expansive or narrow it wishes to make the whistle-blower statute, flares must be lit to mark the perilous road that the courts will have to maneuver if a public policy provision is adopted. It is for this reason that I write separately.

      . Because we are reviewing the district court's decision to grant judgment notwithstanding the verdict, we present the evidence te the light most favorable to the verdict. See Edgewater Motels, Inc. v. Gatzke, 277 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Minn.1979).

      ."Trashing” at MMWC constituted immediate grounds for dismissal. Delaney described MMWC's "no trashing” policy:
      No trashing meant that we were not supposed to put anybody down; that we were not supposed to say anything negative; that we weren’t supposed to have any closed door conversation; we were not supposed to talk out of group meetings; we weren’t allowed to say anything outside of the Center that went around in the Center; we were not allowed to contact people outside of the Center.

      . The district court heard the MHRA claims in August 1999 and entered judgment for the defendants. The court of appeals affirmed. Anderson-Johanningmeier, 2000 WL 1869555, at *3. That portion of the court of appeals' decision is not before us.

      . Thus, despite the appearance of Anderson-Johanningmeier's name in the case caption, the issue before us does not involve her. Only Delaney and Morrell were plaintiffs in the whistleblower trial.


author: STONEBURNER, Judge.

text:
    Sandra HUTTNER, in her capacity as Trustee for the Heirs and Next of Kin of Delores Fenske, Decedent, and Joanne Kinne, Respondents (C9-01-416), Appellants (C6-01-437), v. STATE of Minnesota, Ramsey County, Audrey Fischer, Kenneth Johnson, Leon Boeckmann, Behavioral Health Services, Inc., David L. Johnson, MD, and Larry Dewayne Davis, Jr., Appellants (C9-01-416), Respondents (C6-01-437).
    Nos. C9-01-416, C6-01-437.
    Court of Appeals of Minnesota.
    Sept. 4, 2001.
    Review Denied Nov. 13, 2001.

      See also 595 N.W.2d 520.

      Arlo H. Vande Vegte, P.A., Long Lake, MN, for appellant Huttner.
    Susan Gaertner, C. David Dietz, St. Paul, MN, for respondents Ramsey County and Fischer.
    Considered and decided by SCHUMACHER, Presiding Judge, STONEBURNER, Judge and PARKER, Judge .

       Retired judge of the Minnesota Court of Appeals, serving by appointment pursuant to Minn. Const, art. VI, § 10.

   OPINION

STONEBURNER, Judge.

During his provisional discharge from a commitment for mental illness, and while under the intensive supervision of Ramsey County social worker Audrey Fischer, Larry Dewayne Davis stopped taking the medication prescribed to control his mental illness. Davis became violent, attempted to murder Joanne Kinne, and murdered Delores Fenske. Sandra Huttner, as trustee for Fenske’s heirs and next of kin, challenges the district court’s determination that her wrongful-death claims against Ramsey County and Fischer are barred by the three-year limitation on bringing wrongful-death actions. Ramsey County and Fischer challenge the district court’s determination that they are not entitled to official immunity because Fischer’s duty to verify Davis’s prescribed medications was a ministerial duty. Because the unambiguous language of Minn.Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (1996), which excepts wrongful-death actions based on murder from the three-year limitation, does not limit its application to the murderer, we reverse the district court’s application of the limitation to Huttner’s wrongful-death claims against Fischer and the county. Because Fischer’s statutory duty to monitor Davis’s compliance with his medication and treatment plan implicitly includes the ministerial duty to verify that Davis was taking the medications prescribed for him, we affirm the district court’s determination that Fischer and the county are not entitled to official immunity for Fischer’s failure to monitor Davis’s compliance with his individual treatment plan.

FACTS

Davis has a history of alcohol and marijuana use. He started hearing “voices” and in November 1996, he became spontaneously violent, assaulting an employee of an apartment complex and, after being transported to a hospital, the hospital staff. As a result, Davis was committed as mentally ill and chemically dependent. Fischer was appointed as Davis’s case manager while Davis was hospitalized. Pursuant to court order, Haldol was administered to Davis for his psychosis and Cogentin was administered to control the side effects of Haldol. Davis was compliant with medications during his hospitalization and he made progress in treatment, although at least one urine test showed cannabis in his system in early January 1997. On January 30, 1997, Davis was provisionally discharged from the treatment center under intensive supervision. His provisional discharge plan required him, among other things, to take his prescribed medications, meet with his psychiatrist, meet with Fischer, and avoid chemicals.

On April 11, Davis met with his psychiatrist and told the psychiatrist that he wanted to stop taking Haldol and that he had already (without consulting a doctor) reduced the dosage from the prescribed 10 mg to 5 mg. The psychiatrist told Davis he could discontinue taking Cogentin but he did not tell Davis to stop taking Haldol, or approve the reduced dosage of Haldol. Nonetheless, Davis stopped taking all medications on April 11, 1997. Davis also stopped seeing the psychiatrist.

At an April 14 meeting with Fischer, Davis told her that the psychiatrist had authorized him to stop taking his medications. Fischer made a note to confirm Davis’ statement with the psychiatrist. Because of “crisis events” in other files, however, Fischer never did so. Fischer continued to meet with Davis through May 16. During that period, she noted no unusual conduct by Davis. At the May 16 meeting, Fisher and Davis agreed to meet on May 23. When Fisher arrived at Davis’ apartment on May 23, however, there was no answer when she knocked on his door, nor was there an answer when she tried to contact Davis by phone.

On May 26, Davis became violent. He killed Fenske and tried to kill Joanne Kinne. Later tests showed evidence of marijuana in his blood at the time of the crimes. In the resulting criminal proceedings, Davis was convicted of murder and attempted murder. The supreme court affirmed the convictions and, regarding Davis’s April 11, 1997 meeting with his psychiatrist, stated that “[m]isunderstand-ing the doctor’s instructions, [Davis had] discontinued all medications.” Davis v. State, 595 N.W.2d 520, 524 (Minn.1999).

In related civil proceedings, Sandra Huttner was appointed trustee for Fenske’s heirs and next-of-kin. She and Kinne sued the county, Fischer, and other persons and entities involved in Davis’s treatment on several theories, including Huttner’s claim for wrongful death. The details of Huttner’s April 26, 2000, attempt to serve Fischer in the wrongful-death action are disputed. Fischer was served again on July 10, 2000. It is undisputed that Huttner served the county after the generally applicable three-year limit for wrongful-death claims had expired.

On July 18, the county moved, on behalf of itself, Fisher, and others, to dismiss the wrongful-death claims and for summary judgment based on theories including official immunity for Fischer and vicarious official immunity for itself, and the statute of limitations for wrongful-death actions. The district court dismissed the wrongful-death claim against the county based on the three-year statute of limitations, but ruled that Fischer’s conduct was not entitled to official immunity because when she wrote the note to verify Davis’s medication status with the psychiatrist, her duty to do so became ministerial. Because the district court determined that Fischer was not entitled to official immunity, and because the county could be vicariously liable for Fischer’s conduct, the district court denied the motion to dismiss Kinne’s action against the county and Fischer. In a later order, the district court dismissed the wrongful-death action against Fischer, determining that it was barred by the statute of limitations. The district court declined to reconsider the immunity questions. The county appealed the district court’s immunity rulings (No. C9-01-416) and Huttner appealed the statute of limitations determination (No. C6-01-437). This court consolidated the appeals.

ISSUES

1. Is the “murder exception” to the three-year statute of limitations on wrongful-death claims applicable to persons other than the murderer?

2. Is a social worker who is providing intensive supervision of a person provisionally discharged from a mental-illness commitment entitled to official immunity for a failure to verify the client’s compliance with the portion of his individual treatment plan requiring him to take prescribed medications when the person asserts that his psychiatrist had discontinued the medications?

3. Is Ramsey County, the social worker’s employer, entitled to vicarious official immunity for the social worker’s failure to verify the client’s compliance with his treatment plan?

ANALYSIS

On appeal from a summary judgment, appellate courts ask whether (1) there are any genuine issues of material fact and (2) the trial court erred in its application of the law. State by Cooper v. French, 460 N.W.2d 2, 4 (Minn.1990). A reviewing court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was granted. Fabio v. Bellomo, 504 N.W.2d 758, 761 (Minn.1993).

I. Statute of Limitations

Whether a district court correctly determines a limitations period is a legal question we review de novo. See Sargent v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 486 N.W.2d 14, 16 (Minn.App.1992), review denied (Minn. Aug. 4, 1993). Generally actions for wrongful death must be brought within three years after the decedent’s death. Minn.Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (1996). Under an exception to this rule, however,

[a]n action to recover damages for a death caused by an intentional act constituting murder may be commenced at any time after the death of decedent.

Id. Huttner did not serve Ramsey County or Fischer within three years after Fenske’s death. The district court held that the legislature intended the murder exception to apply only to claims against the murderer and not to claims against others possibly liable for the murderer’s actions on negligence theories.

Although the district court may be correct about the legislature’s intentions, the statute’s language contains no such limitation. And neither legislative intent nor legislative history is relevant when, as here, the language of a statute is unambiguous. See Minn.Stat. § 645.16 (1996) (stating when words of a law are “clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of the law shall not be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing the spirit”). The supreme court has stated:

Our statutes provide for an action for the wrongful death of a person, vesting it in the personal representative for the benefit of the next of kin. One cause of action is created, and one only, and all persons whose wrongful act contributed to cause the death may be joined as defendants therein.

Almquist v. Wilcox, 115 Minn. 37, 39, 131 N.W. 796, 796 (1911) (referring to a prior version of the current wrongful-death statute). Clearly, an action to recover damages for a death caused by murder may be brought against persons other than the one(s) who actually inflict death. The plain language of the murder-exception to the three-year limitation does not limit its application to the person(s) who commit the murder. To read the exception as only applicable to the murderer(s) would be to improperly read a provision into the statute that the legislature did not include. See Martinco v. Hastings, 265 Minn. 490, 497, 122 N.W.2d 631, 638 (1963) (“If there is to be a change in the statute, it must come from the legislature, for the courts cannot supply that which the legislature purposefully omits or inadvertently overlooks.”); Tereault v. Palmer, 413 N.W.2d 283, 286 (Minn.App.1987) (stating that “the task of extending existing law falls to the supreme court or the legislature, but does not fall to this court”), review denied (Minn. Dec. 18, 1987).

Persuasive as the district court’s reasoning may be, we are constrained to interpret the law as written. Huttner’s wrongful-death action against Fischer and the county is an action to recover damages for a death caused by an intentional act constituting murder, and as such, may be commenced at any time after the death of the decedent. The claims are not barred by failure to serve Fischer and the county within three years after Fenske’s death. Summary judgment for Fischer and the county based on the statute of limitations is reversed and this aspect of the case is remanded for further proceedings.

II. Official Immunity

Where summary judgment sought on grounds of non-federal official immunity is denied, the order denying the summary judgment is immediately appeal-able. McGovern v. City of Minneapolis, 475 N.W.2d 71, 73 (Minn.1991). Whether government entities and employees are protected by official immunity is a legal question which appellate courts review de novo. Johnson v. State, 553 N.W.2d 40, 45 (Minn.1996).

The common law doctrine of official immunity provides that a public official who is charged by law with duties calling for the exercise of judgment or discretion is not personally liable to an individual for damages unless the official is guilty of a willful or malicious act. Official immunity thus protects government officials from suit for discretionary acts taken in the course of their official duties. The doctrine is designed to protect officials from “the fear of personal liability that might deter independent action.”

Wiederholt v. City of Minneapolis, 581 N.W.2d 312, 315 (Minn.1998) (quoting Elwood v. Rice County, 423 N.W.2d 671, 677 (Minn.1988)) (citations omitted). Only dis-eretionary decisions are immune from suit, so the critical determination is whether the nature of the official’s actions is discretionary or ministerial. A discretionary act involves individual professional judgment, reflecting the professional goal and factors of a situation. Id. “[A] ministerial duty is one in which nothing is left to discretion; it is absolute, certain, and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty arising from fixed and designated facts.” Id. (quotation omitted).

“The starting point for analysis of an immunity question is the identification of ‘the precise governmental conduct at issue.’ ” Gleason v. Metropolitan Council Transit Operations, 563 N.W.2d 309, 315 (Minn.App.1997) (quoting Watson by Hanson v. Metropolitan Transit Comm’n, 553 N.W.2d 406, 415 (Minn.1996)), aff'd in part, 582 N.W.2d 216 (Minn.1998). Here, the precise conduct at issue is Fischer’s failure to verify whether, in fact, Davis was no longer obligated under his individual treatment plan to take medications to control his mental illness that Fischer knew were prescribed at the time of his discharge. Despite noting in her records that she should verify Davis’s statements that the psychiatrist had discontinued medication, Fischer failed to do so.

The existence of a ministerial act cannot be determined without a review of the duty underlying the challenged conduct. S.W. v. Spring Lake Park Sch. Dist. No. 16, 580 N.W.2d 19, 28 (Minn.1998). “[P]ublic officials clearly have a duty to adhere to ordinances and statutes.” Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316 (citation omitted). Minn.Stat. § 245.4711, subd. 3 (1996), required case managers to develop a specific individual community support plan, which must incorporate the client’s individual treatment plan, and to “review the [client’s] progress, and monitor the provision of services.” An individual treatment plan is defined:

[A] written plan of intervention, treatment, and services for an adult with mental illness that is developed by a service provider under the clinical supervision of a mental health professional on the basis of a diagnostic assessment. The plan identifies goals and objectives of treatment, treatment strategy, a schedule for accomplishing treatment goals and objectives, and the individual responsible for providing treatment to the adult with mental illness.

Minn.Stat. § 245.462, subd. 14 (1996). Fischer was assigned as Davis’s case manager while he was confined at the regional treatment center. She was aware of his assaultive behavior, that medication was prescribed for Davis, and that a condition of his provisional discharge and his individual treatment plan was that Davis would take medications as prescribed. Necessarily implied in Fischer’s statutory duty to monitor Davis’s compliance with his treatment plan was a duty to verify that Davis was abiding by the component of that plan requiring him to take prescribed medications. Fischer’s note in her records to contact the psychiatrist to verify Davis’s statement that medications were no longer prescribed did not create a duty, it merely acknowledged her already existing statutory duty to be (or become) aware of the medications prescribed and Davis’s compliance.

Fischer argues that even if she had a ministerial duty to contact the psychiatrist to verify prescriptions, the timing of such contact was discretionary. We disagree. Fischer acknowledged in her testimony in Davis’s criminal trial that a client’s failure to take medications is “significant” and would be reported to the court. Evidence in the record verifies the critical role of medication in managing Davis’s mental illness. Knowledge that Davis had discontinued medications gave rise to Fischer’s immediate duty to verify the status of his prescription. Fulfilling this statutory duty did not require the exercise of any discretion and therefore was ministerial and not entitled to the protection of official immunity. The district court’s refusal to order summary judgment on the immunity issues is affirmed .

III. Vicarious Official Immunity

Huttner argues that even if Fischer is entitled to official immunity, the county could be denied vicarious official immunity for failure to fulfill its separate statutory duty to develop policies to ensure the ongoing contact and coordination between the case manager and community-support services and mental-health services. See Minn.Stat. § 245.4711, subd. 5 (1996). We have concluded that Fischer is not entitled to official immunity. Additionally, because this issue was not addressed by the district court, it is not properly before this court. Thiele v. Stick, 425 N.W.2d 580, 582 (Minn.1988). Under these circumstances, we decline to address the question. Based on our holding that Fischer is not entitled to official immunity for failing to verify Davis’s compliance with prescribed medications, there is no vicarious official immunity for the county for this aspect of Fischer’s conduct. See Wiederholt, 581 N.W.2d at 316 (noting, generally, “‘[i]t would be anomalous * * * to impose liability on the [government employer] for the very same acts for which [the employee] receives immunity.’ ”) (quoting Watson, 553 N.W.2d at 415).

DECISION

Because Minn.Stat. § 573.02, subd. 1 (1996), the “murder exception” to the three-year limit on bringing wrongful-death actions, is not limited to actions against the murderer, we reverse the district court’s application of that statute to Huttner’s wrongful-death claims against Fischer and Ramsey County. Because Fischer’s duty to verify Davis’s claim that he was no longer required to take medications was ministerial, we affirm the district court’s determination that Fischer and Ramsey County are not entitled to official immunity and vicarious official immunity, respectively.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.

      . The district court's order states that Fischer's decision not to suggest revocation of Davis's provisional discharge from the treatment center because of missed appointments, at least one incident of alcohol use, and the fact that Davis was not taking his prescribed medications "constitute decisions regarding how much liberty Fischer was going to afford Davis and are thus protected by the official immunity doctrine.” Because Fischer and the county prevailed in these aspects of the official-immunity ruling, the only portion of that ruling that aggrieved Fischer and the county (and hence the only portion of the ruling that was appealed) was the portion ruling that Fischer's failure to verify Davis's medication status was a ministerial duty and unprotected by official immunity. Because Huttner did not file a notice of review in the county's appeal, we decline to address her challenges to other aspects of the official-immunity ruling. See Minn. R. Civ.App. P. 106 (requiring notice of review for respondent to obtain review of adverse ruling); see e.g., Arndt v. American Family Ins. Co., 394 N.W.2d 791, 793 (Minn.1986) (stating this court correctly refused to address respondents' claims where notice of review not filed); cf. Engvall v. Soo Line R.R. Co., 605 N.W.2d 738, 744-45 (Minn.2000) (stating failure to immediately appeal appealable interlocutory ruling does not result in forfeiture of right to review on appeal from final judgment).

      . While the district court did not explicitly address the existence of a duty, it did find that once Fischer decided to contact the psychiatrist, her obligation to actually contact the psychiatrist was merely the execution of a specific duty and therefore ministerial, and not protected by official immunity.

      . Fischer and the county argue they are entitled to summary judgment because Fischer had no ability to control Davis, arguing that, absent an ability to control, Fischer had no duty to the victims in this case. Generally, the existence of a duty to control the conduct of a third person to prevent that person from causing injury to another depends on two factors: (1) whether a 'special relationship' existed between the defendant and the third person and (2) the foreseeability of the harm. Lundgren v. Fultz, 354 N.W.2d 25, 27 (Minn.1984). "Ability to control” is a question for the jury. Id. at 28. Close questions of foreseeability should be given to the jury. Id. Davis was under a judicial commitment for mental illness and was on provisional discharge from confinement for that mental illness only so long as he complied with the requirements of intensive supervision by Fischer, who was well aware of Davis’s ability to become suddenly, and extremely violent. Fischer had a range of potential control mechanisms available to her once she determined that Davis was not in compliance with prescribed medications. There is sufficient evidence in the record to create a question for the jury on these issues.