Herrera v. IBP, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining that “the statute of limitations period does not commence until” the discovery rule has been satisfied
• establishing that a cumulative injury is manifest when “the claimant, as a reasonable person, would be plainly aware (1) that he or she suffers from a condition or injury, and (2) that this condition or injury was caused by the claimant’s employment”
• under discovery rule, claimant must be aware of seriousness of condition and impact on employment
• “[B]y virtue of the discovery rule, the statute of limitations will 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.”
• “The preferred analysis is to first determine the date the injury is deemed to have occurred . . . and then to examine whether the statutory period commenced on that date or whether it commenced upon a later date based upon application of the discovery rule.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).