Court of Appeals Addresses Manifestation Date, 90 Day Notice
In Tyson Foods v. Shaw, No. 12-0432 (Iowa App. Oct. 3, 2012), the court addressed issues of the manifestation date of the injury, and the corollary issue relating to the 90 day notice requirement. The court affirmed the commissioner's findings which indicated that the manifestation date was sufficient to bring claimant within the 90 day notice requirement. The court also found that substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant's manifestation was correct found by the agency.
Claimant alleged a cumulative injury to his feet from his work at Tyson. As a part of his job, he had to lift 50 pound bags of chemicals, and had to push heavy items. He was required to wear rubber pullover boots on the job. Claimant testified that his feet slipped in the boots because they were too large. Claimant also had diabetes. When problems began to develop with his feet, Tyson replaced his standard boots with leather steel toed boots. Claimant had a lengthy process of problems with his feet, infections, and the eventual development of Charcot foot. The doctor testified that June 30, 2007 was the first time he told claimant the foot deformity was being accelerated by his continued work. Claimant reported the foot injury on August 30, 2007.
The agency found that the manifestation date was August 30, which was when she left work and became more and never returned to full duty after. Tyson argued that the agency applied the wrong legal standard. After surveying the law on cumulative injuries, including discussion of McKeever, Tasler and Herrera, the court concluded that "the commissioner did not reinvent the standard for determining when an injury manifests itself, but considered the factor which on this record demonstrated the date of manifestation." The court found that this conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the agency.
Claimant alleged a cumulative injury to his feet from his work at Tyson. As a part of his job, he had to lift 50 pound bags of chemicals, and had to push heavy items. He was required to wear rubber pullover boots on the job. Claimant testified that his feet slipped in the boots because they were too large. Claimant also had diabetes. When problems began to develop with his feet, Tyson replaced his standard boots with leather steel toed boots. Claimant had a lengthy process of problems with his feet, infections, and the eventual development of Charcot foot. The doctor testified that June 30, 2007 was the first time he told claimant the foot deformity was being accelerated by his continued work. Claimant reported the foot injury on August 30, 2007.
The agency found that the manifestation date was August 30, which was when she left work and became more and never returned to full duty after. Tyson argued that the agency applied the wrong legal standard. After surveying the law on cumulative injuries, including discussion of McKeever, Tasler and Herrera, the court concluded that "the commissioner did not reinvent the standard for determining when an injury manifests itself, but considered the factor which on this record demonstrated the date of manifestation." The court found that this conclusion was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the agency.
Comments
Post a Comment