RECENT IOWA APPELLATE CASELAW IMPACTING WC STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND NOTICE DEFENSE

The Iowa Supreme Court recently decided Tweeten v. Tweeten, No. 22-2081 (December 22, 2023) and Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 23-0393 (February 7, 2024), cases with significant impact on application of the statute of limitations under Iowa Code section 85.26 and the notice provision of section 85.23.

The Claimant in Tweeten worked for his dad on the family farm. While vacuuming grain out of a bin on July 25, 2017, Claimant hurt his right arm. At hearing, the deputy found that Claimant had right elbow epicondylitis and a deltoid tear arising out of the grain bin incident in July 2017. The deputy applied the “discovery rule” to conclude that Claimant did not learn of the seriousness of his injury until April 2018, which meant that the January 21, 2020 Petition did not violate the two-year statute of limitations for Iowa workers’ compensation claims. The employer appealed to the Iowa Supreme Court.

At issue was application of the “discovery rule.” That rule tolled the statute of limitations until an employee knew that their work injury was serious enough to have a permanent impact on their employment or employability. Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2001). The Supreme Court evaluated whether Claimant’s January 21, 2020 Petition was timely under Iowa Code section 85.26, since statutory changes were made in 2017 that could potentially impact when an injury was legally found to have occurred. While Claimant identified July 25, 2017 as the work event that caused his injuries, he relied on the discovery rule to prevent application of the statute of limitations. Specifically, Claimant argued that the discovery rule tolled the statute of limitations until he knew 1) that the injury was work related and 2) that the injury would have a permanent adverse impact on his employment or employability. The Supreme Court disagreed.

The Supreme Court quoted from the post-2017 version of Section 85.26(1) from 2017:

An original proceeding for benefits . . . shall not be maintained in any contested case unless the proceeding is commenced within two years from the date of the occurrence of the injury for which benefits are claimed . . . . For the purposes of this section, ‘date of the occurrence of the injury’ means the date that the employee knew or should have known that the injury was work-related.

(Emphasis added). The Supreme Court concluded that the specific definition for “date of the occurrence of the injury” eliminated the old discovery rule, writing that the general assembly “has chosen to limit the discovery rule to knowledge that an injury is work-related, not to knowledge of the compensable nature of the injury as we had previously recognized.” The Supreme Court therefore concluded that the statute of limitations begins to run when an employee “knows or should know that an injury is work-related, without regard to whether the injury is also serious enough to be compensable.”

A short time after Tweeten, the Iowa Court of Appeals relied on the decision in Tyler v. Tyson Fresh Meats, Inc., No. 23-0393 (February 7, 2024). In Tyler, the Claimant alleged injury on October 31, 2018 but notified the employer of a work injury on October 22, 2019. The employer asserted that Claimant failed to provide timely notice of his injury (within the 90 days required by section 85.23) while Claimant asserted that he did not know of the seriousness of his injury until September 2019. Therefore, Claimant asserted that the notice period was tolled under the discovery rule. The deputy and the Commissioner both found that Claimant did not give timely notice of his injury under section 85.23. Claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeals noted that the discovery rule had applied to both the statute of limitations under section 85.26 and the notice requirements of 85.23 but also that Tweeten changed the analysis. Referencing that recent decision and the 2017 legislative changes to the Iowa Workers’ Compensation Act, the Court of Appeals wrote: “the only question since the 2017 amendment is when Tyler knew or should have known that his injury was work-related” (emphasis added). Because Claimant knew he sustained a work injury as of his October 2018 retirement, the Court affirmed the Commissioner’s decision.

The Tweeten and Tyler decisions provide some much-needed clarity on the statute of limitations and notice provisions of Iowa’s Workers’ Compensation Act. Now, no matter the type or severity of the injury, the statute of limitations and notice limitation begin to run when an employee knew or should have known that the injury was work related. An employee is no longer required to know that the injury was serious enough to have an adverse impact on employment or employability for the statute of limitations to run. These changes make it all the more important that employers conduct prompt investigation into a work accident and gather initial statements regarding when an employee knew they were potential suffering from a work injury.

For additional information on how these changes apply to the facts of your case, please reach out to Paul Barta or Eric Sutton at 402-475-1075.