author: LARSON, Justice.

text:
    Brian L. EVANS, Appellant, v. Judy BENSON and Bluffs Psychiatric Associates, P.C., Appellees.
    No. 05-1006.
    Supreme Court of Iowa.
    May 4, 2007.

      James L. Sayre of James L. Sayre, P.C., Clive, for appellant.
    Jeffrey A. Boehlert of Patterson, Lor-entzen, Duffield, Timmons, Irish, Becker & Ordway, L.L.P., Des Moines, for appellee Judy Benson.
    John M. French of Peters Law Firm, P.C., Council Bluffs, for appellee Bluffs Psychiatric Associates, P.C.
   LARSON, Justice.

Brian Evans sued Judy Benson, a nurse, and her employer, Bluffs Psychiatric Associates, P.C., for invasion of privacy and negligent disclosure of confidential medical records. The case was tried by the court without a jury, and the court entered findings of fact and judgment in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

The plaintiff, Brian Evans, had been employed by Pella Corporation in its Shenandoah, Iowa plant, but his employment was terminated as the result of several problems experienced in that relationship. He had been reprimanded for excessive absenteeism and was warned of possible termination if his performance did not improve. These disciplinary matters were handled by Robert Larson, Pella’s human resources manager. Evans expressed hostility toward Larson and admitted he had homicidal thoughts about him. At the urging of Evans’ fiancée, he was evaluated by a clinical psychologist in November 2000, and the psychologist reported that Evans was highly irritable, had suicidal thoughts, and confirmed that Evans had homicidal thoughts about Larson. Later in November, Evans was evaluated by defendant Judy Benson, a registered nurse practitioner, who testified that Evans had exhibited signs of anxiety and suicidal thoughts. He also talked about Robert Larson and hurting him “real bad.” Benson told Evans that she thought it was her professional responsibility to warn Larson of the danger posed by Evans.

Ms. Benson testified she understood her duty as a psychiatric nurse in such cases to be twofold:

I have a duty to both protect and warn. My duty to protect, to protect any patient, in this case Mr. Evans, from doing anything that would harm him or harm another person. If Mr. Evans harms another person, that does irreparable harm to Mr. Evans as well.
The other thing ... is that if someone is identified and I think there is a reasonable possibility that they will be harmed, I have to tell — contact them and tell them that this person has threatened to harm them. I don’t have to tell them anything else. And in this case, I did not.

Benson testified that Evans was experiencing “command hallucinations” — voices that told him what to do, and a voice told him to harm himself. He stated he had access to a gun, and Benson was “very, very worried” about what might happen. Evans’ fiancée told Benson that “all [Evans] could think about was harming Bob Larson.” In her thirty years of experience, she had never before felt the need to contact a third person to warn them about a patient.

Benson discussed Evans’ case with a psychiatrist, a judicial referee, and the hospital’s attorney. This team decided that Evans should be examined for possible hospitalization under Iowa Code chapter 229A (mental commitment).

On November 30, 2000, the day Evans was examined by Benson, Benson called Robert Larson to inform him of her concerns for his safety. That call, according to Evans, caused Evans’ employment to be terminated. The district court disagreed, finding

the Plaintiff has failed to establish by any substantial evidence that the phone call was in fact the cause of Plaintiffs termination or his damages. On the contrary, the testimony of Robert Larson and Plaintiffs personnel records clearly established that his job was in jeopardy and he was subject to termination if and when he returned to work following a lengthy, unexcused absence in November of 2000.

This finding by the court is well supported by the record. The acceptable absenteeism rate at Pella was two percent. At the time Evans’ employment was terminated, his absenteeism rate was 23.04%. Evidence was introduced that, based on Evans’ high absentee rate and his failure to respond to two earlier “corrective actions” by Pella, Evans was going to be terminated regardless of Benson’s telephone call. Larson testified that the production manager recommended Evans’ termination before the telephone call was received.

The trial court found that Evans failed to establish a key element of his claim, proximate cause. Our review of a trial court’s finding in a jury-waived case is for correction of errors at law, and the trial court’s findings of fact have the effect of a special verdict. Data Documents, Inc. v. Pottawattamie County, 604 N.W.2d 611, 614 (Iowa 2000). This means that a district court’s decision will not be set aside unless it was induced by an error of law. Papenheim v. Lovell, 553 N.W.2d 328, 328 (Iowa 1996). In this case, Evans had the burden of proving proximate cause. Having failed to do so in the district court, he can prevail on appeal only if he shows proximate cause was established as a matter of law. See Pub. Fin. Co. v. Van Blaricome, 324 N.W.2d 716, 718 (Iowa 1982) (“We can interfere with the trial court’s determination of evidentiary insufficiency against the party having the burden of proof only if the evidence is so overwhelming that the party carried the burden as a matter of law.”). The plaintiff in this case has not made such a showing.

AFFIRMED.


source: Caselaw Access Project

author: HTJITINK, J.

license: Public Domain

text:
    HEARTLAND SPECIALTY FOODS and Allied Group Insurance, Petitioners-Appellees, v. Linda JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellant.
    No. 06-0399.
    Court of Appeals of Iowa.
    Feb. 14, 2007.

      Jason D. Neifert of Max Schott & Associates, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

      Maureen R. Tobin and Erik S. Fisk of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., West Des Moines, for appellee.
    Considered by SACKETT, C.J., and HUITINK and MAHAN, JJ.
   HTJITINK, J.

Linda Johnson appeals the district court decision remanding her workers’ compensation claim back to the commissioner for additional fact finding and analysis. We reverse the district court decision and affirm the commissioner’s decision awarding benefits.

I. Facts and Prior Proceedings

On May 30, 1995, Johnson was involved in a physical altercation with a co-worker at her workplace. Her employer, Heartland Specialty Foods (Heartland), sent her home after the incident. One week later, Johnson’s family doctor determined she was experiencing “anxiety-related problems related to work.” Subsequently, Johnson was treated by a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Johnson has been unable to return to work because of her mental state and condition.

Johnson filed a workers’ compensation petition on June 2, 1997, alleging a physical/mental injury to the body as a whole. Initially, the workers’ compensation commissioner disposed of the claim on a motion for summary judgment, finding that the claim was barred because the proceeding was not commenced within two years from the date of the occurrence of the injury. On judicial review, the district court overturned the motion for summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings. After a full arbitration hearing, the commissioner once again determined the case was barred by the statute of limitations. This ruling was upheld on judicial review by the district court. Johnson appealed.

The Iowa Supreme Court found Johnson’s claim was not time barred by Iowa Code section 85.26(1) (1995). Johnson v. Heartland Specialty Foods, 672 N.W.2d 326, 328 (Iowa 2003). In so ruling, the court stated,

Under the discovery rule, the time within which a proceeding must be commenced does not begin to run until the claimant, as a responsible person, should recognize the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the condition. Claimant must know enough about the condition to realize that it is compensable.... There is no indication that [Johnson] sustained any disabling physical injury as a result of the alleged assault upon her. Her first knowledge that she was suffering from a compensa-ble condition appears to have come from her visit to the doctor on June 6, 1995. We are satisfied that the discovery rule serves to delay the commencement of the period of limitations until that date.
Although we would ordinarily remand this case to the Industrial Commissioner to make the requisite findings of fact concerning the lack of a prior compensa-ble physical injury, the employer’s argument concedes that there was no prior compensable physical injury. The only compensable injury is the mental injury caused by a traumatic event that was not itself compensable as a physical injury. Accordingly, we determine as a matter of law that under the discovery rule claimant’s case is not barred by section 85.26(1).

Id. After concluding Johnson’s claim survived the statute of limitations challenge, the court “remanded to the Industrial Commissioner for further proceedings on the claim that are not inconsistent with this opinion.” Id.

The commissioner delegated final agency authority to the deputy commissioner to issue a decision based upon the existing record. Upon remand, the deputy made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law: (1) Johnson sustained a physical injury which arose out of and in the course of her employment, (2) the physical injury was a substantial factor in precipitating the mental health treatment and caused Johnson’s present mental condition, (3) Johnson is permanently and totally disabled, (4) Johnson was not injured as a result of a willful injury on her part, and (5) Johnson was entitled to benefits.

Heartland sought judicial review with the district court, arguing the mental injury was not compensable because, alternatively, (1) it was pled as a physical-mental injury claim and without a “compensable” physical injury there is no claim; (2) the mental injury fails to meet the legal causation element of the test set forth in Dunlavey v. Economy Fire & Casualty Co., 526 N.W.2d 845, 851 (Iowa 1995); or (3) the mental injury fails to meet the “manifest happening of a sudden traumatic nature from an unexpected or unusual strain” test set forth in Brown v. Quik Trip Corp., 641 N.W.2d 725, 729 (Iowa 2002).

The district court remanded back to the commissioner for “further findings and analysis regarding the factual and legal basis for the conclusion that Johnson’s mental injury [was] compensable” because the remand decision “did not contain any findings of fact or analysis setting forth the legal basis supporting the conclusion that Johnson’s mental injury was compen-sable.”

Johnson appeals, contending-the district court erroneously ordered a remand and that Heartland cannot now raise the lack of compensable physical injury argument because that argument should have been raised during prior appellate review.

II. Standard of Review

We review decisions of the workers’ compensation commissioner under Iowa Code chapter 17A. See Iowa Code § 86.26. Our review of the commissioner’s decision is for errors at law, not de novo. Second Injury Fund v. Braden, 459 N.W.2d 467, 468 (Iowa 1990). We broadly and liberally construe the commissioner’s findings to uphold, rather than defeat the decision. Second Injury Fund v. Hodgins, 461 N.W.2d 454, 455 (Iowa 1990). We must examine whether the commissioner’s conclusions are supported by substantial evidence in the record made before the agency when the record is viewed as a whole. Second Injury Fund v. Shank, 516 N.W.2d 808, 812 (Iowa 1994). Evidence is substantial if a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach a conclusion. John Deere Dubuque Works of Deere & Co. v. Weyant, 442 N.W.2d 101, 105 (Iowa 1989). An agency’s decision does not lack substantial evidence because inconsistent conclusions may be drawn from the same evidence. Shank, 516 N.W.2d at 812. In reviewing the commissioner’s interpretation of the statutes governing the agency, we defer to the expertise of the agency, but reserve for ourselves the final interpretation of the law. Braden, 459 N.W.2d at 468.

III. Discussion

It is well-established law that the commissioner must state the evidence relied upon and detail the reasons for his conclusions. Bridgestone/Firestone v. Accordino, 561 N.W.2d 60, 62 (Iowa 1997); Terwilliger v. Snap-On Tools Corp., 529 N.W.2d 267, 274 (Iowa 1995). However, “the commissioner need not discuss every evidentiary fact and the basis for its acceptance or rejection so long as the commissioner’s analytical process can be followed on appeal.” Accordino, 561 N.W.2d at 62 (citing Terwilliger, 529 N.W.2d at 274). Thus, the commissioner’s duty is satisfied if “it is possible to work backward [from the agency’s written decision] and to deduce what must have been [the agency’s] legal conclusions and [its] findings of fact.” Norland v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 412 N.W.2d 904, 909 (Iowa 1987) (quoting Ward v. Iowa Dep’t of Transp., 304 N.W.2d 236, 239 (Iowa 1981)).

The district court remanded this case because the remand decision “did not contain any findings of fact or analysis setting forth the legal basis” for the conclusion that Johnson’s mental injury was compensable. We conclude a remand is not necessary in this case because we find the decision contains adequate findings of fact and analysis to support the deputy’s conclusion.

The remand decision incorporated a finding from an earlier decision that a physical injury arose out of and occurred in the course of her employment — “a fight with her co-worker resulted in claimant having a mark on her neck, having her clothes ripped, and also suffering from a headache.” The deputy also cited evidence from Johnson’s two treating physicians indicating that the injury was a substantial factor in precipitating the treatment for Johnson’s mental health impairment and that it was their opinion that it was extremely unlikely Johnson would be able to return to work. As stated in Dunlavey, 526 N.W.2d at 853,

Whether an injury has a direct causal connection with the employment or arose independently thereof is essentially within the domain of expert testimony. The weight to be given such an opinion is for the finder of fact, in this case the commissioner, and that may be affected by the completeness of the premise given the expert and other surrounding circumstances.

(Internal citations omitted.) The deputy’s reference to the physicians’ opinions reflects that he accepted such opinion and gave weight to it so as to find causation in this case. While the deputy’s findings of fact could have expanded on the details of causation, his reference to the opinion of the two treating physicians was sufficient.

The deputy’s analysis adequately supports the deputy’s conclusion that the mental injury was compensable due to a traumatic work-related injury. See Mortimer v. Fruehauf Corp., 502 N.W.2d 12, 17 (Iowa 1993) (holding that “psychological conditions resulting from work-related trauma are compensable”). Therefore, a remand for further findings and analysis is not necessary.

Heartland argues the claim should be dismissed because a “compensable” physical injury is a necessary component of any physical/mental injury claim. In essence, because the underlying physical injury was deemed not compensable by the Iowa Supreme Court, Heartland argues the claim for mental injury should be dismissed. We reject Heartland’s attempt to heighten the standard for recovery for a mental injury resulting from a work-related injury. Our review of prior case law finds sporadic and incidental use of the word “compensable” when referring to the work-related injury, but no indication that the underlying physical injury must be compensable in order to give rise to the compensable mental injury. Even though the physical/mental standard arose from cases where the claimant sought additional compensation for mental injuries stemming from a previously awarded compen-sable injury, see e.g., Coghlan v. Quinn Wire & Iron Works, 164 N.W.2d 848 (Iowa 1969); Gosek v. Gamier & Stiles Co., 158 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 1968), we do not read these cases to require that the underlying work-related trauma must be a compensa-ble injury in and of itself. This holding is consistent with the underlying purpose of the workers’ compensation statute — “to benefit workers and their dependents insofar as the statute permits.” Brown v. Star Seeds, Inc., 614 N.W.2d 577, 580 (Iowa 2000) (citation omitted); see also Mortimer, 502 N.W.2d at 14 (stating the workers’ compensation statute “is for the benefit of the working person and should be, within reason, liberally construed.”).

Accordingly, we reverse the district court’s order and reaffirm the decision of the workers’ compensation commissioner.

DISTRICT COURT REVERSED; WORKERS’ COMPENSATION COMMISSIONER AFFIRMED.

      . We assume without deciding that Heartland properly raised this argument, even though it was not raised in the two prior appeals to the district court or in the initial brief to the Iowa Supreme Court.


author: VOGEL, P.J.

text:
    In the Interest of E.J.C., Minor Child, R.C., Mother, Appellant.
    No. 07-0033.
    Court of Appeals of Iowa.
    March 14, 2007.
    Scott Bandstra of Bandstra Law Firm, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant mother.
    Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kathrine Miller-Todd, Assistant Attorney General, Steve Johnson, County Attorney, and James Cleverley, Assistant County Attorney, for appellee State.
    Maria Ruhtenberg of Whitfield & Eddy, P.L.C., Des Moines, for minor child.
    Considered by VOGEL, P.J., and VAITHESWARAN and EISENHAUER, JJ.
   VOGEL, P.J.

Rosa appeals the district court’s termination of her parental rights to her son, Elijah. Because Rosa requested, but was denied court-appointed counsel, we reverse and remand for rehearing.

Background Facts and Proceedings. In June 2005, Rosa’s son Elijah, then just two months old, was removed from Rosa’s care because of “threats by the mother that she leave with the child, the lack of care for the child and physical abuse to the child has occurred in the home.” Elijah was adjudicated a child in need of assistance (CINA) in July under Iowa Code section 232.2(6)(n) (2005) (parent’s mental capacity/condition or drug or alcohol abuse results in child not receiving adequate care). Because of her indigency, Rosa was represented by court-appointed legal counsel throughout the course of the CINA proceeding, including the permanency hearing on July 21, 2006. When the petition to terminate her parental rights was filed on October 27, 2006, Rosa was without counsel. It appears that Rosa did receive notice of the termination hearing, which stated that an application for appointed counsel should be made “immediately on a form available from the Clerk of Court or Juvenile Court Officer.” Rosa waited and did not request court appointed counsel until the day before the scheduled termination hearing of December 7, 2006. The district court took up the issue at the start of the hearing, acknowledged that it received the request the previous day, but denied appointment of counsel stating,

It’s impractical to try to appoint an attorney on the evening before a trial that’s going to start the day after, so it looks like you just waited too long, [Rosa], to put in your application, so I can certainly take that up, but it won’t delay the hearing.

The hearing proceeded without Rosa having the benefit of legal representation, and the district court issued its order on December 27, terminating her parental rights.

Scope of Review. We review termination of parental rights cases de novo. In re J.E., 723 N.W.2d 793, 798 (Iowa 2006).

Right to Appointed Legal Counsel. Under the Federal Constitution, the United States Supreme Court has held that there is no due process requirement that indigent parents be provided with appointed counsel in every termination proceeding. See Lassiter v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 452 U.S. 18, 31, 101 S.Ct. 2153, 2162, 68 L.Ed.2d 640, 652 (1981), reh’g denied, 453 U.S. 927, 102 S.Ct. 889, 69 L.Ed.2d 1023 (1981). Instead, the Court opined that courts should examine the circumstances of each ease individually, as states may find such guarantees under their constitutions or state legislatures may have also created statutory rights in various instances. Id., 452 U.S. at 31-34, 101 S.Ct. at 2162-63, 68 L.Ed.2d at 652-654, 657. Our Iowa legislature has created such a statutory right in section 232.113(1) (2005) which states:

Upon the filing of a petition the parent identified in the petition shall have the right to counsel in connection with all subsequent hearings and proceedings. If the parent desires but is financially unable to employ counsel, the court shall appoint counsel.

Therefore, involuntary termination proceedings conducted pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 232 “call for the furnishing of an attorney at public expense when requested by indigent parties.” In re S.A.J.B., 679 N.W.2d 645, 647 (Iowa 2004) (citing In re J.L.L., 414 N.W.2d 133, 134 (Iowa 1987); Iowa Code § 232.113(1)).

In denying Rosa court appointed counsel, the district court reasoned that her request, coming on the eve of trial, was simply made too late for the hearing to proceed as scheduled. While late filed requests can certainly hinder the efficiency of a busy court docket, we find it notable that section 232.113(1) does not set forth any time frame in which a request for court appointed counsel must be made. Therefore, while Rosa should have been more attentive to her legal needs and applied for counsel earlier, we cannot say that her delay necessarily should deprive her of counsel. Absent a statutory limitation, we conclude the district court erred when it declined Rosa’s request for court-appointed legal counsel.

Moreover, the record reflects that Rosa’s borderline intellectual functioning may have impeded her understanding of the proceedings against her and her pressing need for counsel. The Iowa Department of Human Services case worker assigned to Rosa and Elijah testified at termination that Rosa believed her rights had already been terminated at the July 2006 permanency hearing. Under the circumstances of this case, we conclude it was error for the district court to determine that Rosa’s late request should deprive her of her right to appointed counsel. We reverse the termination of Rosa’s parental rights to Elijah and remand to the district court for rehearing with direction to appoint legal counsel to represent Rosa prior to the proceeding.

REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.

      . The putative father’s parental rights were also terminated, but he does not appeal.

      . No application for court appointed counsel was made part of the record on appeal. However a later application was filed on December 18 after the hearing, made presumably for purposes of appointment of counsel on appeal.

      .Our supreme court has recently reiterated an indigent parent's right to appointed counsel in involuntary termination proceedings, by providing the same right to private, involuntary termination of parental rights under chapter 600A. See In re R.S.N., 706 N.W.2d 705, 707-09 (Iowa 2005).

      . Other states have reached the conclusion that delay in requesting appointment of counsel amounts to a waiver of that right. See generally Patricia C. Kussmann, Annotation, Right of Indigent Parent to Appointed Counsel in Proceeding for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights, 92 A.L.R.5th 379 (2001) (analyzing the existence of the right to counsel across various state jurisdictions); In re B.M.P., 704 S.W.2d 237 (Mo.Ct.App.S.D.1986) (holding a request on the day of the termination hearing came too late to trigger the statutory guarantee of appointed counsel when father had no mental deficiency or other incapacity that would prevent him from understanding the summons).

      . We also conclude that our case is distinguishable from In re S.R., 548 N.W.2d 176, 180 (Iowa Ct.App.1996), where the district court denied appointment of counsel to a father whose request came after termination had already occurred. The court reasoned that the incarcerated father waived his right to court-appointed counsel due to his inaction following the notification of his rights in the personal service that stated, "If you are financially unable to hire an attorney, the Court will appoint one for you, if you notify the Clerk of Juvenile Court of this fact within five days after you receive this Notice. If you do not employ an attorney or notify the Clerk within the specified time that you wish an attorney, you will be deemed to have waived this right.” Id. at 177.


author: GILDEA, Justice.

text:
    Vernon Neal POWERS, petitioner, Appellant, v. STATE of Minnesota, Respondent.
    No. A06-1941.
    Supreme Court of Minnesota.
    May 17, 2007.

      Vernon Neal Powers, Bayport, MN, pro se.
    Lori Swanson, Minnesota Attorney General, James B. Early, Assistant Attorney General, St. Paul, MN, Kristen Nelson, Mower County Attorney, Austin, MN, for Respondent.
   OPINION

GILDEA, Justice.

Appellant Vernon Neal Powers filed a motion for correction of sentence, pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, in Mower County District Court. The district court treated the motion as Powers’ third petition for postconviction relief and denied the motion without a hearing. Powers appealed to this court, arguing that the district court erred when it denied the motion. We affirm.

The facts of the underlying crime in this case are set forth in detail in State v. Powers, 654 N.W.2d 667, 672-74 (Minn.2003). A jury found Powers guilty of two counts of first-degree murder and one count of first-degree assault. Powers was sentenced to two consecutive life terms for the premeditated murder counts, and 86 months for the assault conviction, to run consecutively with the life sentences. Powers appealed his conviction to this court, and we affirmed. Id. at 672. Subsequently, Powers filed his first petition for postconviction relief in Mower County District Court. He made a number of arguments in his postconviction petition, including the argument that his consecutive sentences violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights under Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The district court concluded that Powers’ sentences did not violate his constitutional rights, and we affirmed, concluding the argument was barred by State v. Knaffla, 309 Minn. 246, 252, 243 N.W.2d 737, 741 (1976). Powers v. State, 688 N.W.2d 559, 561 (Minn.2004). Powers then filed his second postconviction petition. The district court denied relief, and we again affirmed. Powers v. State, 695 N.W.2d 371, 375 (Minn.2005).

Powers commenced the instant action by filing a motion for correction of sentence, pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03. Powers’ motion argued that Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 124 S.Ct. 2531, 159 L.Ed.2d 403 (2004), retroactively applies to his sentence in light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Washington v. Recuenco, — U.S. -, 126 S.Ct. 2546, 165 L.Ed.2d 466 (2006). The district court denied Powers’ motion without hearing. The court treated Powers’ motion for correction of sentence under Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03 as his third petition for postconviction relief and concluded that because Powers raised an Apprendi argument in his first postconviction petition, his current sentencing argument was barred by Knaff-la.

A postconviction court shall order an evidentiary hearing “[ujnless the petition and the files and records of the proceeding conclusively show that the petitioner is entitled to no relief.” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 1 (2006). The postconviction petition, however, must include “ ‘more than argumentative assertions without factual support.’ ” Hodgson v. State, 540 N.W.2d 515, 517 (Minn.1995) (quoting Beltowski v. State, 289 Minn. 215, 217, 183 N.W.2d 563, 564 (1971)). Additionally, a postconviction court “may summarily deny a second or successive petition for similar relief on behalf of the same petitioner and may summarily deny a petition when the issues raised in it have previously been decided by the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court in the same case.” Minn.Stat. § 590.04, subd. 3 (2006).

On review of a postconviction decision, we determine whether there is sufficient evidence to support the postconviction court’s findings. White v. State, 711 N.W.2d 106, 109 (Minn.2006). We will not overturn the postconviction court’s decision unless the court abused its discretion. Id. The district court did not abuse its discretion in this case.

It is well settled that when, as in this case, “direct appeal has once been taken, all matters raised therein, and all claims known but not raised, will not be considered upon a subsequent petition for postconviction relief.” Knaffla, 309 Minn. at 252, 243 N.W.2d at 741. Additionally, matters raised or known but not raised in an earlier petition for postconviction relief will generally not be considered in subsequent petitions for postconviction relief. Spears v. State, 725 N.W.2d 696, 700 (Minn.2006).

We hold that Knaffla bars Powers’ claims. Powers raised his sentencing argument based on Apprendi in his first postconviction petition. Powers’ current claim is essentially the same claim, but he cites Blakely in support of his argument as well as Apprendi. Powers does not explain how Blakely has changed his sentencing argument. Moreover, to the extent that the sentencing claim is different based on Blakely, it is KnaffUt-barred because Powers could have raised it in his second petition for postconviction relief.

There are two exceptions to the Knajfla rule: (1) if a novel legal issue is presented, or (2) if the interests of justice require review. Perry v. State, 705 N.W.2d 572, 574 (Minn.2005) (quoting Taylor v. State, 691 N.W.2d 78, 79 (Minn.2005)). We conclude that neither exception applies. Powers’ claims are not novel and the interests of justice do not require review. Powers could have made his arguments previously, and he has not presented a colorable explanation of why he failed to do so.

Powers also argues, for the first time in his brief to this court, that the sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional because they were enacted by the Minnesota Sentencing Guidelines Commission, rather than by the legislature. We are “most reluctant” to address issues that were not raised at the district court, State v. Sorenson, 441 N.W.2d 455, 459 (Minn.1989), and we choose not to do so here.

We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing, without hearing, Powers’ motion for a correction of sentence.

Affirmed.

      . Powers has not made this argument to this court. Therefore, we need not address it. We note, however, that Recuenco did not address the retroactive application of Blakely, and the Supreme Court pointed out that both Apprendi and Blakely were decided before the Washington Supreme Court heard the case on direct appeal. Recuenco, 126 S.Ct. at 2549.

      . Powers does not challenge the district court’s decision to treat his motion as a petition for postconviction relief. The district court’s decision finds support in the language of Minn.Stat. § 590.01, which is broad enough to encompass a motion pursuant to Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03. See Minn.Stat. § 590.01 (2006) (allowing a convicted person to petition the district court to correct a sentence); Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9 ("The court at any time may correct a sentence not authorized by law."); see also State v. Stutelberg, 435 N.W.2d 632, 633 (Minn.App.1989) (characterizing the appellant’s motion as a "motion for postconviction relief under Minn. R.Crim. P. 27.03, subd. 9”).

      . Blakely was decided on June 24, 2004, so Powers knew, or should have known, to raise his arguments with respect to Blakely when he filed his second postconviction petition on November 3, 2004.

      . Even if we chose to address Powers’ argument, we would conclude that the argument is Knaffla-barred because he could have raised it on direct appeal.