Muscatine County v. Morrison
| Decision Date | 22 July 1987 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1010,86-1010 |
| Parties | MUSCATINE COUNTY, Iowa, and Fremont Indemnity Company, Appellants, v. Marvin C. MORRISON, Appellee. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
Lee H. Gaudineer & Jon K. Swanson of Austin & Gaudineer, Des Moines, for appellants.
James R. Keele of Keele & Keele, P.C., West Liberty, for appellee.
Considered by McGIVERIN, P.J., and SCHULTZ, CARTER, WOLLE and NEUMAN, JJ.
This case presents an issue of first impression concerning the compensability of a hearing loss under the Occupational Hearing Loss Act, Iowa Code chapter 85B (1985). The specific issue we are asked to address is whether a hearing loss that results from prolonged exposure to noise while working is compensable under chapter 85B when the exposure is to noise below the times and intensities specified in Iowa Code section 85B.5. We conclude that such a loss may be compensable; thus, we affirm the rulings of the district court and the industrial commissioner.
I. Background facts and proceedings. Claimant Marvin Morrison operated a road maintainer over a period of eleven years for Muscatine County, Iowa. He generally operated the maintainer at a noise level exposure lower than ninety decibels for less than eight hours per day.
Following his retirement in 1983, Morrison noticed a loss of hearing and filed a petition for compensation with the industrial commissioner, Iowa Code sections 17A.12 and 86.14, on an alleged fifty percent hearing loss. See 343 Iowa Admin.Code 4.1(1). During discovery in the case, it became apparent that the claimed hearing loss was based upon exposure to noise levels less than the times and intensities set forth in section 85B.5. Muscatine County, Morrison's employer, and Fremont Indemnity Company, the county's workers' compensation insurer, filed a petition for declaratory ruling with the industrial commissioner. See Iowa Code § 17A.9. In that petition the employer and insurer sought a declaratory ruling on whether compensation could be awarded for alleged occupational hearing loss when the noise causing that hearing loss did not meet the time and intensity levels set forth in the table in section 85B.5.
The deputy industrial commissioner ruled that section 85B.5 does not preclude a claimant from showing that his hearing loss was caused by exposure to noise at work for a time and to a degree less than the levels specified in the table in section 85B.5. The employer and insurer appealed to the industrial commissioner. Iowa Code § 86.24(1). The industrial commissioner adopted the ruling of the deputy. Id. § 86.24(2).
The employer and insurer then filed in district court their petition for judicial review of the industrial commissioner's decision, claiming the ruling was affected by an error of law. See Iowa Code §§ 17A.19, 86.26. The district court affirmed the industrial commissioner's ruling. The employer and insurer again appeal. See id. § 17A.20.
II. Compensability of hearing loss. "Occupational hearing loss" is defined by Iowa Code section 85B.4(1), in relevant part, as:
a permanent sensorineural loss of hearing in one or both ears in excess of twenty-five decibels ..., which arises out of and in the course of employment caused by prolonged exposure to excessive noise levels.
(Emphasis added.) The chapter then explains: " 'Excessive noise level' means sound capable of producing occupational hearing loss." Iowa Code § 85B.4(2). Section 85B.5 provides in part:
An excessive noise level is sound which exceeds the times and intensities listed in the following table:
Duration Sound level, Sound level
per day dBA slow Duration per dBA slow
hours response day minutes response
-------- ------------ ------------ ------------
8 90 52 106
7 91 45 107
6 92 37 108
5 93 33 109
4 1/2 94 30 110
4 95 26 111
3 1/2 96 22 112
3 97 18 113
2 1/2 98 16 114
2 1/4 99 15 115
2 100 No exposure Greater
1 3/4 101 permitted than 115
1 1/2 102
1 1/4 103
1 1/8 104
1 105
Section 85B.5 goes on to state that when an employer becomes aware that an employee is being exposed to sound levels and durations in excess of those listed in the table the employer must notify the employee of the exposure.
Muscatine County and Fremont Indemnity Company dispute the industrial commissioner's interpretation of these provisions of chapter 85B. They assert that the adoption of section 85B.5 established for the employer minimum exposure levels necessary to establish an occupational hearing loss, and that the employer would have no liability for an employee's hearing loss if the employee's exposure to noise fell below these levels. Thus, the employer and insurer argue that Morrison's failure to allege exposure levels at or above the levels specified in section 85B.5 precludes him from recovery.
This case marks the first opportunity for us to interpret chapter 85B. When interpreting a statute, we seek the legislature's intent in enacting the provision. Iowa R.App.P. 14(f)(13). We believe the legislature enacted the Occupational Hearing Loss Act to make it easier for a claimant to prove the compensability of hearing loss attributable to prolonged exposure to noise at work.
The legislature adopted chapter 85B in 1980. Prior to its passage, an employee could recover for hearing loss attributable to prolonged exposure to noise at work only after overcoming nearly insurmountable procedural and substantive obstacles. 1 The legislature responded to medical awareness of the potential for hearing loss due to prolonged exposure to excessive noise by enacting chapter 85B, removing many obstacles to proving an occupational hearing loss. 1980 Iowa Acts ch. 1026 (codified at Iowa Code ch. 85B).
We consider the administrative construction of the statute as a guide to legislative intent. Iowa Code § 4.6(6). The industrial commissioner sought to give effect to both the definition of "excessive noise level" and the table on excessive noise levels. See Iowa Code §§ 4.4(2) (), 85B.4(2), 85B.5 (1985). The commissioner stated:
This interpretation recognizes that prolonged exposure at work to noise at levels below the section 85B.5 standards may still cause an occupational hearing loss. Section 85B.4(2) embodies that thought. The employer and insurer by their argument fail to give effect to the "excessive noise level" definition set out in section 85B.4(2).
Other states allow awards for occupational hearing loss under their occupational disease or workers' compensation statutes, often without stated time and intensity exposure levels. See Miller v. Amalgamated Sugar Co., 105 Idaho 725, 672 P.2d 1055 (1983) (occupational disease statute); Armco Steel Corp. v. Trafton, 35 Md.App. 658, 371 A.2d 1128 (1977) (same); Dotolo v. FMC Corp., 375 N.W.2d 25 (Minn.1985) (workers' compensation statute); Scheier v. Garden State Forge Co., 136 N.J.Super. 555, 347 A.2d 362 (1975) (same); McCuiston v. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp., 308 N.C. 665, 303 S.E.2d 795 (1983) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Risor v. Nebraska Boiler
...27. Romero, supra note 21. 28. Ashby v. Long Island Rail Road Co., 7 A.D.3d 651, 777 N.Y.S.2d 177 (2004). 29. Muscatine County v. Morrison, 409 N.W.2d 685 (Iowa 1987). 30. Shipman, supra note 31. OCT Equipment, Inc. v. Ferrell, 114 P.3d 479 (Okla.Civ.App.2005). 32. Elliott Turbomachinery Co......
-
Grundmeyer v. Weyerhaeuser Co., 01-0849.
...requirements permit. Id. In Muscatine County v. Morrison, we had the first opportunity to interpret Iowa Code chapter 85B. 409 N.W.2d 685, 687 (Iowa 1987). We observed that the legislature enacted Iowa Code chapter 85B, the Occupational Hearing Act, "to make it easier for a claimant to prov......
-
John Deere Dubuque Works of Deere & Co. v. Weyant
...for a claimant to prove the compensability of hearing loss attributable to prolonged exposure to noise at work. Muscatine County v. Morrison, 409 N.W.2d 685, 687 (Iowa 1987). However, our analysis cannot stop at that point. The existence of a statute of limitations manifests an intention to......
-
John Deere Dubuque Works of Deere & Co. v. Meyers
...for a claimant to prove the compensability of hearing loss attributable to prolonged exposure to noise at work." Muscatine County v. Morrison, 409 N.W.2d 685, 687 (Iowa 1987). We think that applying the discovery rule to occupational hearing losses is consistent with this legislative object......