Supreme Court Holds that Discovery Rule Applies to Traumatic Injuries

In Baker v. Bridgestone/Firestone, No. 14-2062 (Iowa Dec. 18, 2015), the Court confirmed that the discovery rule applied to traumatic injury cases as well as cumulative injury cases.  The commissioner had ruled, in a series of cases beginning with Clark v. City of Spencer, No. 5017329 (App. Sept. 11, 2007), that the discovery rule did not apply to cases involving traumatic injuries.  On judicial review, the district court reversed the decision of the agency and the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court.

The Court first discussed the purpose and character of the Iowa's workers' compensation system, noting that the costs of a work injury should be borne by the industry itself and not dependent on individual fault or negligence.  The "grand bargain" providing immunity to employers from potentially large tort lawsuits in exchange for a claimant not have to demonstrate negligence was discussed at length, as was the assurance of prompt payments in the workers' compensation system. The court concluded that:

     The unique relationship between employers and their injured employees under the grand bargain        of workers' compensation also animates a rule of statutory interpretation deeply embedded                  throughout our caselaw.  We liberally construe workers' compensation statutes in claimants' favor      to effectuate the statute's humanitarian and beneficent purpose.

With this guidance the court noted that originally the discovery rule did not apply to workers' compensation cases.  In 1980, however the court considered the issue following an amendment to the the statute of limitations provisions of the statute and concluded, in Orr v. Lewis Central School District, 298 N.W.2d 256, 261 (Iowa 1980) that the discovery rule was applicable in workers' compensation cases.  Since 1980, the court noted that it had applied that rule in a number of cases involving cumulative injuries, including Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284, 288 (Iowa 2001).

The court noted that Mr. Baker's case, which involved a traumatic injury to his back when he stepped on a lanyard, straightened up and felt pain in his back, was a traumatic injury.  The court noted that it had applied the discovery rule in "single event cases" such as Dillinger v. City of Sioux City.  The court noted that in Larson Mfg. v. Thorson, it had reaffirmed that the three elements of the discovery rule were the nature, seriousness of probably compensable character of the injury.  The court distinguished the decision in Swartenzdruber v. Schimmel, 613 N.W.2d 646 (Iowa 2000), which defendant had claimed barred application of the discovery rule to traumatic injuries.  The court noted that it had applied the discovery rule in Swartzendruber, based on the date claimant was diagnosed with a loose prosthetic hip and sent to the specialist.  The court noted that the determination of what constitutes the seriousness of the injury was a "fact specific inquiry."

In the context of Mr. Baker's case, where he had a specific injury, but had not been taken off work, had not been given specific restriction, had not had a definitive diagnosis and had not been sent for any testing, summary resolution of the limitations issue was not possible.  the agency, according to the court, "must apply the discovery rule when it is properly raised and substantial evidence supports it."  The statute is tolled until the claimant has knowledge of the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury. The court then went on to discuss cases in other jurisdictions where the discovery rule was applied to traumatic injuries.  The case was remanded for application of the discovery rule to claimant's situation.

The Baker case is significant in that it expressly holds that until a reasonable claimant appreciates the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of his injury, whether it be traumatic or cumulative, the statute of limitations is tolled.  This could have consequences for workers who sustain a traumatic injury which does not initially affect their work, but which is later realized as serious.

Baker was handled by Martin Ozga of Neifert, Byrne & Ozga.

Comments

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