Court of Appeals Holds that Claimant Has a Duty to Investigate Probable Compensable Nature of a Claim Where an Injury Has Manifested and Claimant Knows the Injury was Work-Related

 City of Harlan v. Thygesen, No. 21-0265 (Iowa App. March 30, 2022)

In this hearing loss case, claimant suffered a hearing loss some ten years prior to the time claimant filed his claim and knew that his injury was work-related.  Claimant alleged that despite these facts, the statute did not begin to run on his claim until either 2014 (when he was provided with audiogram results) or 2015 (the date assigned by the employer because he did not appreciate the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury until those dates.  Defendants alleged that claimant failed to timely notify them of the claim and failed to timely file the claim.

The commissioner found that claimant, despite being aware of hearing loss and the fact that the hearing loss was caused by employment, did not appreciate the severity of the claim, crediting the testimony of claimant.  The district court reversed and found that claimant knew the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the claim.  

On appeal, the Court of Appeals notes that there is an additional component to application of the discovery rule - whether claimant had knowledge of facts sufficient to trigger a duty to investigate the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury.  The Court noted that there was no evidence in the record that claimant pursued his duty to investigate the injury. The Court faulted claimant for not requesting written copies of test result until October of 2014 even though he knew he had some form of hearing loss.  Based on the record, the Court finds that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the agency finding that claimant "in the exercise of reasonable diligence" could not have recognized the probable compensable character of his hearing loss in June of 2012.  According to the Court, the fact that claimant's injury manifested a decade before he filed his claim and knew the injury was work-related was sufficient to trigger a duty to investigate the probable compensable character of the claim, notwithstanding evidence in the record that claimant work activities had not been affected by the injury.  

The decision in Thygesen appears to ignore the facts presented at the hearing that claimant did not know of the probable compensable character of that claim and imposes a duty on claimant to investigate even though claimant's work is not affected by the injury.  This appears to create a rule requiring claimant to investigate a claim even though his employment is not affected by the injury.