Ranney v. Parawax Co., Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• holding the discovery rule does not require an expert opinion of causation, but instead, limitations begin to run when the employee discovers the nature, seriousness, and probable compensable character of the injury or disease
• stating that, under Iowa law, once a claimant knows or should know that his or her condition is possibly compensable, he or she has the duty to investigate to ascertain whether the known condition is probably, as opposed to merely possibly, compensable
• distinguishing Bressler because “Ranney was not misled by his physicians into believing that his exposure to chemicals did not cause his Hodgkin’s disease. Rather, as Ranney testified, the physicians he consulted would not commit themselves, one way or the other.”
• statute of limitations does not begin running when plaintiff secures medical determination of causation but when plaintiff is on notice problem exists demanding investigation
• “We agree with the industrial commissioner that by 1987 or 1988, at the latest, Ranney had enough information to trigger his duty to investigate.”
• “[h]is inability to find expert support for his theory of causation within that time does not prevent the limitations period from running.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).