999 N.W.2d 270
Iowa2023Background:
- Corey Tweeten injured his right arm while vacuuming grain on July 25, 2017; he was later diagnosed with lateral epicondylitis and a distal deltoid tear that required surgery.
- Corey filed a workers’ compensation petition on January 21, 2020 and also asserted a claim against the Second Injury Fund based on a 2008 ankle injury.
- The Second Injury Fund and Corey entered a compromise settlement (approved by the commissioner) resolving only the applicability of the Second Injury Compensation Act.
- Grinnell (employer/carrier) obtained an IME finding the deltoid tear not work-related; another IME (Dr. Sassman) concluded both injuries were work-related and billed $4,650.
- A deputy commissioner and the commissioner found both injuries compensable and awarded benefits and IME costs; the district court partially reversed on timeliness (allowing only the deltoid claim) but upheld IME reimbursement.
- The Iowa Supreme Court: (1) held the compromise with the Second Injury Fund did not bar Corey’s employer claim, (2) held the 2017 statutory definition of “date of the occurrence of the injury” narrowed the discovery rule so Corey’s claim was untimely, and (3) reversed the IME reimbursement because the claim was not compensable and therefore employer not liable for the fee.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Effect of Iowa Code §85.35(9) compromise settlement | Settlement with Second Injury Fund does not bar Corey’s separate claim against his employer because settlement subject was Second Injury Act applicability | Approved compromise bars any further rights under chapter 85 and divests commissioner of authority over related claims | The 2005/2007 amendment limits the bar to the “subject matter of the compromise”; settlement did not bar Corey’s employer claim |
| Whether discovery rule tolls §85.26(1) after 2017 amendment | The common-law discovery rule still applies; limitations tolled until claimant knew injury was compensable/permanently adverse | 2017 statutory definition (“date employee knew or should have known injury was work-related”) replaces broader discovery rule and starts limitations earlier | The legislature limited accrual to when employee knew/should have known injury was work-related; the broader discovery rule no longer applies and Corey’s petition was untimely |
| Reimbursement for independent medical exam under §85.39(2) | Corey is entitled to full reimbursement of Dr. Sassman’s $4,650 fee | Statutory changes cap/restrict reasonable fee and employer not liable if injury not compensable | Court did not decide statutory fee question; because claim untimely and injury not compensable, reimbursement award reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- United Fire & Cas. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins., 677 N.W.2d 755 (Iowa 2004) (prior decision holding approved compromise special-case settlement terminated commissioner’s jurisdiction over related claims)
- Bankers Standard Ins. Co. v. Stanley, 661 N.W.2d 178 (Iowa 2003) (previous broad reading that an approved compromise bars further rights under the workers’ compensation statutes)
- Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2001) (articulating manifestation and discovery tests for cumulative workplace injuries)
- Orr v. Lewis Cent. Sch. Dist., 298 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1980) (applying discovery rule to toll accrual of workers’ compensation claims)
- Schultze v. Landmark Hotel Corp., 463 N.W.2d 47 (Iowa 1990) (canon that courts should not add words to a statute when construing its meaning)