Recent Case Law

Iowa Workers' Compensation Decisions of Note

 

Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2001).

 
Herrera first noticed pain in her arms and hands in 1990 and she was sent to a doctor.  Her symptoms eventually decreased and she returned to work without restrictions.  Then, in March of 1993 Herrera again experienced pain in her upper extremities, sought medical treatment, and was diagnosed with overuse symptoms.  Her pain began to decrease again, however in 1994 she started a work hardening program that aggravated her symptoms.  Thus, in May of 1994 her work hardening program was reduced and she was placed on light duty in June of 1994.

In August of 1994 the doctor started her on work hardening again because he determined she should be able to do her regular job.  However, in December of 1994 it was determined she suffered from chronic pain syndrome and suggested possible job restrictions or a pain clinic referral.  A few days later, in January 1995 she was fired for reasons unrelated to her job and filed suit for workers' compensation benefits in May of 1995.

 IBP defended by saying Herrera's claims was time barred because she filed it more than two years after the date of injury.  Thus, the issue for the Iowa Supreme Court was when the statute of limitations began to run when the alleged injury is the result of a cumulative trauma.

The Supreme Court held that Herrera's claim was not time barred even though the injury was deemed to have occurred in March of 1993, more than two years prior to the filing of her petition.  The Court noted that a cumulative injury manifested itself when a reasonable employee would be plainly aware that (1) he/she suffers from a condition or injury, and (2) this condition or injury was caused by the employee's work.  The Court found that Herrera's injury manifested itself in March of 1993 when she went to see the doctor.  However, the Court further noted the statute of limitations did not begin to run until the employee also knows that the physical condition is serious enough to have a permanent adverse impact on the claimant's employment or employability (i.e. they know the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the injury or condition).  The Court held that a reasonable employee in Herrera's shoes would not have realized this prior to May of 1993; therefore the claim was not barred by the statute of limitations because Herrera realized the permanent impact within two years of filing her petition.

One important factor noted by the Court was the fact Herrera had a prior history of similar problems that had resolved with conservative treatment within four months.  Therefore, it would be hard for an employee to realize her condition would have an adverse permanent impact.