Court of Appeals Addresses Cumulative Work Injury/Notice Issue

In Pella Corp. v. Winn, No. 14-0771 (Iowa App. May 6, 2015), the Court of Appeals addressed issues concerning the date of injury in the context of a cumulative injury, and notice issues associated with the date of injury.  Claimant was awarded benefits by the agency, but the district court concluded that the agency had failed to use the correct legal test in determining the date of the cumulative injury.  The district court remanded the case to the agency and found that the employer was entitled to assert an untimely notice defense on appeal.  The Court of Appeals agreed with the district court that the correct legal test was not used, but also finds that the notice defense could not be considered on remand.

Claimant had a left shoulder injury and returned to work after that injury.  She began having problems in the right shoulder and saw a nurse practitioner for the problem on June 1, 2010.  Following an MRI, a rotator cuff tear in the right shoulder was also found.  She was seen by an orthopaedist on August 27, 2010, and he discussed treatment options, including surgery.  She filed two petitions, one with an injury date of June 1, 2010, and the other with an injury date of November 16, 2010.

Claimant's hearing was on February 16, 2012, and the deputy found her to be a credible witness.  The deputy found that the date of injury was November 16, 2010, as this was the date the injury was serious enough to have a permanent, adverse impact on her employment.  The deputy awarded an 80% industrial disability.  The commissioner affirmed the decision, noting that even though the injury was known in June of 2010, claimant did not know this would adversely affect her employment until November 16, 2010.  The June petition was dismissed.

The district court adopted the credibility findings of the agency.  The court concluded, however, that the agency had not applied the correct legal test in determining the date of injury and remanded the case for application of the standards in Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2001).  The court also noted that if the agency found that, under the proper legal analysis, the June 1, 2010 case should have been closed, then the untimely notice claim would need to be addressed.

The employer argued before the appellate court that the district court erred by remanding the case for a determination of the injury date rather than dismissing the case.  Claimant argued that the district court erred in allowing the notice defense to be raised.  The court noted that actual notice to Pella did not occur until the petitions were filed on February 4, 2011.  The court finds that the determination that claimant discovered that her condition was serious enough to have a permanent impact on employment November 16, 2010, and that this made notice timely.  The court concluded that this was a factual issue, which was in the province of the agency, and therefore overturned the district court's decision on the notice issue.

With respect to the issue of a cumulative injury, the court noted that Herrera prescribed that the date of injury was to be determined under Tasler (claimant knows of injury or condition, and knows that condition was caused by employment).  Here, the court finds that the agency bypassed this step and went straight to the discovery rule.  The court notes that the employee argues that since specific dates were pled in the petitions, the claimant was bound by those dates for the date of injury.  The court finds that this is not the case, citing from Tasler that "the test is fundamental fairness, not whether the notice meets technical rules of common law pleading."  The court concludes that if the agency's finding that the 11/16/10 injury was supported by substantial evidence, remanding for the determination of the date of injury for manifestation purposes was in  order.

The employer argued that the deputy did not separate her findings of fact from conclusions of law, but the court finds that "it is easy to differentiate the deputy's factual findings and conclusions of law in her decision."  There was no reason to remand the case.  With respect to the factual findings, the court concludes that its review of medical causation was "extremely limited."  The court concludes that the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

The court also concludes that the finding that claimant has reached maximum medical improvement was supported by substantial evidence, as there was no guarantee or evidence of expected significant improvement if surgery was undertaken.

The court ultimately remands on the question of the date of injury manifestation analysis, and affirms the decision of the agency in all other respects.



Comments

  1. Nice post! This is a very nice blog that I will definitively come back to more times this year! Thanks for informative post. Coming game sims 4 skill cheats to show your school spirit.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Court of Appeals Affirms Denial of Workers' Compensation Benefits; Rules on Credit Issue

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions