Venenga v. John Deere Component Works, 92-819

CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
Citation498 N.W.2d 422
Docket NumberNo. 92-819,92-819
PartiesWendell Wayne VENENGA, Appellant, v. JOHN DEERE COMPONENT WORKS, Employer, Self-Insured, Appellee.
Decision Date02 February 1993

Gregory T. Racette of Hopkins & Huebner, P.C., Des Moines, for appellant.

John W. Rathert of Beecher, Rathert, Roberts, Field, Fister, Walker & Morris, Waterloo, for appellee.

Heard by OXBERGER, C.J., and HAYDEN, J., and PERKINS, Senior Judge. *

OXBERGER, Chief Judge.

The principal question in this appeal is whether a workers' compensation claim by employee Wendell Venenga is barred by time limitations. Wendell Venenga began working for John Deere in July 1960. He began having gradual problems with his back while working as a material handler. The pain continued to worsen when he became a shavings hauler.

On May 27, 1986, Venenga slipped at work. He told a supervisor of the fall but did not go to the medical department. He completed work that day but sought treatment the following Monday.

On August 25, 1986, Venenga was seen by another physician, Dr. Walker. In his report, Dr. Walker notes a history of low back pain which had been present for five or six years which Venenga believed originated from heavy lifting at work. Dr. Walker prescribed physical therapy from August 25, 1986, through September 15, 1986.

On August 26, 1986, a strike commenced. While on strike, Venenga continued to see Dr. Walker for his back condition. On October 27, 1986, Venenga entered the hospital for treatment of his back condition. In the discharge summary, Dr. Walker recommended that Venenga remain off the picket line for three weeks.

The strike ended February 1, 1987, and Venenga returned to work. On July 15, 1987, Dr. Walker scheduled Venenga for back surgery on August 21, 1987. Venenga returned to work in June 20, 1988, with permanent restrictions. Dr. Walker attributed Venenga's back condition to the cumulative trauma of his work activities.

Venenga filed an original notice and petition with the industrial commissioner alleging he sustained a work-related low back injury on May 27, 1986, and July 24, 1987.

Venenga alleged he sustained a cumulative injury to his back on July 24, 1987, because on that date he was unable to work due to pain and proceeded to surgery for his back condition.

Following an arbitration hearing, the deputy found Venenga sustained a work-related injury to his low back on October 27, 1986. This was the date Venenga was hospitalized for low back treatment. The deputy stated an earlier date could easily be found since Venenga was apparently disabled in June of 1986 and August of 1986 based upon the medical treatment he received and his absentee records. The deputy concluded, however, that by October 27, 1986, Venenga, as a reasonable person, had within his knowledge sufficient facts to recognize that his back condition was serious and work-related. The deputy also found that the employer did not have sufficient information prior to August 10, 1987, which would have alerted a reasonably conscientious manager to the existence of workers' compensation claim based upon either an acute injury of May 27, 1986, or a cumulative injury of October 27, 1986. Based upon these facts, the deputy concluded that Venenga's claim was barred by the provisions of Iowa Code section 85.23.

Venenga appealed. On August 29, 1991, the industrial commissioner affirmed the deputy's proposed decision and adopted it as final agency action in this case.

Venenga sought judicial review. On May 8, 1992, the district court entered an order affirming the agency's decision. The district court found the commissioner's determination that Venenga reasonably should have been aware of the work-related nature of his injuries at the time of his hospitalization in October 1986 was reasonable and fully supported by the evidence.

Venenga has appealed.

Scope of Review

Our scope of review was well set out in Henry v. Iowa Dep't of Transp., M.V.D., 426 N.W.2d 383, 385 (Iowa 1988):

In reviewing a district court decision on the validity of an agency action, we decide only whether the district court has correctly applied the law. The district court itself acts in an appellate capacity to correct errors of law on the part of the agency. When we review such action by the district court, we merely apply the standards of section 17A.19(8) to determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court. If the conclusions are the same, we affirm; otherwise we reverse. (Citations omitted.)

Discussion

Venenga contends the Commissioner erred in determining his cumulative injury occurred prior to July 24, 1987, the date on which he was no longer able to work due to his injury.

Iowa adopted the cumulative injury rule in McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368, 374 (Iowa 1985). In McKeever, the court also addressed the question of when a cumulative injury occurs for reporting and time limitation purposes: when pain prevents the employee from continuing to work, or when the pain occasions the need for medical attention. Id. The court adopted the rule finding an employee is disabled and injured when, because of pain or physical inability, he or she can no longer work. Id. The court cited numerous cases from other jurisdictions which held an employee was disabled when he or she ceased working. Id.

Our supreme court once again addressed this question in Oscar Mayer Foods Corp. v. Tasler, 483 N.W.2d 824 (Iowa 1992). In Tasler, the court stated:

Consistent with a liberal construction of the worker's compensation statute, we believe that for purposes of computing benefits it is appropriate to fix the date of injury as of the time at which the "disability manifests itself." "Manifestation" is best characterized as "the date on which both the fact of the injury and the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 cases
  • Bass v. Isochem, 3996.
    • United States
    • South Carolina Supreme Court
    • June 6, 2005
    ...& Tube v. Eubank, 84 P.3d 792, 796 (Okla.Civ.App.2003) (citations omitted). The Court of Appeals of Iowa, in Venenga v. John Deere Component Works, 498 N.W.2d 422 (Iowa Ct.App.1993), Iowa adopted the cumulative injury rule in McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368, 374 (Iowa 1985......
  • J.D.B., In Interest of
    • United States
    • Iowa Court of Appeals
    • July 31, 1998
  • In re REKF
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 10, 2005
  • Tieszen v. John Morrell & Co.
    • United States
    • South Dakota Supreme Court
    • September 13, 1994
    ...of pain or physical inability. The Iowa Court of Appeals subsequently expounded on its earlier decisions in Venenga v. John Deere Component Works, 498 N.W.2d 422 (Iowa Ct.App.1993). The court held that the point where the employee first stopped working was the point on which he would have b......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT