Court of Appeals Reverses Commissioner's Decision That Claimant Had Knowledge of Injury At a Time Justifying Dismissal Under 85.23

 Tilton v. H.J. Heinz Company, No. 21-1777 (Iowa App. July 20, 2022)

In a prior proceeding, the Court of Appeals remanded claimant's case to the commissioner for a redetermination of the date claimant knew or should have known her back injury would have a permanent adverse impact on claimant's employment.  The court concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant knew of the permanent adverse impact on September 8, 2010 was not supported by substantial evidence.

On remand, the deputy concluded claimant should have known her injury had a permanent adverse impact on her employment on February 4, 2010, based on a chiropractor's report that her injury was permanent and taking her off work for two to four weeks.  The deputy concluded the claim was barred under section 85.23.  On judicial review, the district court reversed, finding that as claimant did not have a doctor's note giving her permanent restrictions on September 8, 2010, she could not have had notice seven months prior to this.  The court also found the determination that claimant was taken off work was not supported by substantial evidence.  The case was again remanded to the commissioner.

The Court of Appeals notes that under Herrera, a cumulative injury manifests when the employee knows they are injured and that the injury is related to employment.  In Tilton's case, the injury had manifested in 2001.  This, however, was not enough to satisfy the discovery rule, which requires that the employee must recognize that the injury is serious enough to have a permanent adverse impact on employment, which can be established when the employee recognizes the "nature, seriousness and probable compensable character" of the injury.

In the earlier decision, the Court had noted that as of September 8, 2010, no doctors had provided permanent work restrictions to claimant.  The Court expressly rejected the deputy's finding that claimant discovered the injury in February, as that date was seven months prior to a date when the Court had already found claimant had not discovered the nature, seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury.  The Court agreed with the district court that the deputy's decision was irrational and illogical.  The case was again remanded to the commissioner.