Court of Appeals Affirms Dismissal of Tinnitus Claim on Statute of Limitations Grounds

 Havill v. Quaker Oats Company, No. 21-1740 (Iowa App. June 15, 2022)

In this tinnitus case, the workers' compensation commissioner dismissed the claim, finding that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations.  The commissioner concluded that claimant knew or should have known of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable nature of the condition by fall of 2016 and yet did not file a claim until June of 2019.  In reaching this conclusion, the commissioner found that given the incidents and diagnoses made of tinnitus by the fall of 2016 and the fact that claimant sought care at that time, combined with a condition severe enough that claimant had an emotional reaction and needed to lie down, was sufficient to demonstrate claimant knew of the nature, seriousness and possible compensable character of the injury at that time.  The district court affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  

The Court of Appeals finds that substantial evidence supported the commissioner's decision.  They also find that the application of law to fact was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.  The court specifically addressed claimant's contention that he was not aware the condition was serious enough to have a permanent adverse impact on employment until July of 2017.  The court found that the medical notes from that date were no more probative on the permanency issues than those presented from a visit from at least four months earlier.  Although defendants response that the tinnitus had no adverse impact on employment arguably cut against a finding that the statute of limitations began to run at all, the court finds that the resolution of this issue was ultimately a fact issue on which the commissioner's decision was supported by substantial evidence.  The agency's "implicit" finding that claimant knew of the permanency of his condition was supported by substantial evidence.  The dismissal of the claim on statute of limitations grounds was affirmed.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Thomas v. Archer Daniels Midland Company , No. 23-0323 (Iowa App. Nov. 8, 2023) Claimant initial suffered a compensable injury to his right eye in 2017.  He subsequently sustained several injuries in 2018 while stepping off a pontoon boat, which he attributed to a lack of depth perception as a result of his eye issues.  The deputy ruled in favor of claimant, but the commissioner reversed, finding that the 2018 injuries were not a sequelae of the original eye injuries.   The Court of Appeals concluded that the decision of the commissioner was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the decision of the commissioner.  The Court noted that medical causation was a question of fact vested in the commissioner's discretion and noted that although claiant speculated that his fall was caused by his right eye injuries, claimant could not specifically recall what happened and there were no witnesses to provide context.  The speculation of medical experts that vision loss caused the fall
Read more

2021 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2021 Workers' Compensation Appeals Decisions The following are appeal decisions decided by the commissioner in 2021, by month. December 2021 Carmer v. Nordstrom , No. 1656062.01 (App. Dec. 29, 2021) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to her right shoulder and a sequela injury to her left shoulder.  Both of these injuries were found to be scheduled member injuries, but the injuries were found to be industrially compensable under 85.34(2)(v). Claimant was found to have a 70% industrial disability (Palmer). On appeal, the commissioner affirms that there was a sequela injury to the left shoulder, crediting Dr. Segal's report over that of Dr. Milani.  Most importantly, the commissioner affirms the fact that because the two shoulder injuries were the result of a single incident, this injury was to be treated industrially under 85.34(2)(v).  The commissioner notes that "shoulder" injuries were not added to the list of injuries that were to be treated a schedu
Read more

2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions

  2024 Workers' Compensation Appeal Decisions May 2024  Roth v. General Millls, Inc. , No. 1657652.01 (App. May 3, 2024) - Claimant was found to have sustained an injury to the shoulder, but the injury was found not to have extended to the body. Claimant was found eligible for 24 weeks of permanency benefits.  Unauthorized medical care received by claimant was denied (Phillips). On appeal the commissioner affirmed the decision of the deputy without additional analysis. 4 months from arbitration to appeal decision. April 2024 Poe v. Capital Express, Inc. and SIF , No. 22004117.01 (App. April 30, 2024) - In this action, claimant was found to have sustained a 6% injury to the leg and was awarded healing period benefits from April 4, 2022 through August 21, 2002.  A 50% penalty was awarded on all accrued weekly benefits for an unreasonable delay in payment without conveying the reason for the delay (Walsh).  Fund benefits were also awarded, but were not a part of the appeal.  The emplo
Read more