Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Id. Professor Larson notes that in addition to an employee’s failure to recognize the nature of his condition, a failure to recognize the seriousness of a condition is a second reason that may justify a delay in giving timely notice. Larson states that the “claimant must have had reason to be aware of the seriousness of the trouble. This feature is a salutary requirement, since any other rule would force employees to rush in with claims for every minor ache, pain, or symptom.” 7 Larson & Larson, supra, § 126.05[5] see also Rebiski v. Pioneer Tel. Co., 262 N.W.2d 424, 426 (Minn.1978) (noting evidence supported finding that employee reasonably believed that fall from telephone pole would not result in disability); Barcel v. Barrel Finish, 304 Minn. 536, 537-38, 232 N.W.2d 13, 15 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The third reason cited by Professor Larson 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an employees injury while on college grounds to report for first day of work before he reached either the administration building where he was to complete payroll forms or the athletic field house where he was to do the work was an injury suffered in the course of the employment (B) holding that where symptoms of numbness in employees right hand and forearm were at first intermittent and did not interfere with his work the trivial injury rule applied to toll the statutory period for notice of injury to employer (C) holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence (D) holding in an employees action to recover for injury sustained during work against the employer and other defendants did not state an intentional tort claim against contractor (E) holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury
Output (English): holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury