Opinion ID: 2101470
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The Misrepresentation Exception.

Text: Brown also contends that her time for filing of the complaint should be extended because the association misled her into thinking that she could not file a prohibited practice complaint until she had sustained actual damages. She testified that the association's executive secretary had told me very clearly you can do nothing until you suffer damages. Iowa cases recognize that statutes of limitation are tolled if the claim is fraudulently concealed from the plaintiff. Matter of Estate of Graham, 295 N.W.2d 414, 419 (Iowa 1980); Gruener v. City of Cedar Falls, 189 N.W.2d 577, 580-81 (Iowa 1971); Pride v. Peterson, 173 N.W.2d 549, 555 (Iowa 1970). Iowa Code section 20.11 is subject to the same exception. Consequently, Brown's complaint will be deemed timely if she proves that the association fraudulently concealed her cause of action until after April 28, 1980, notwithstanding her due diligence to discover the facts on which she based her complaint. We realize that our remand of this case to the PER Board will further delay its final disposition. While expediency tempts us to predict how the administrative agency will decide the remanded issues and either agree or disagree at this time, we choose the wiser course of deference to agency decision making, followed by limited judicial review. In his administrative law treatise, Kenneth Culp Davis aptly states: The amount of litigation involved with adequacy of administrative findings is tremendous. On first impression, most of the cases remanded for a better statement of findings seem to involve a great deal of wasted energy and needless expense. Of course, the first impression is correct to the extent that the system would be more efficient if the agencies would only give a little more careful attention to the form and content of their findings. But litigation about findings is not limited to mechanics about recitations of the right words. A very large portion of the cases remanded for better findings are an inevitable result of the system of a limited judicial review. When the court's view of law or policy differs from that of the agency, the agency's findings often fail to answer the questions the court deems crucial, and the only proper disposition the court can make of the case is a remand to the agency so that the needed answers can be supplied. 2 K. Davis Administrative Law Treatise § 16.01, at 436 (1958). The district court should have remanded this case to the PER Board for the entry of findings of fact, conclusions of law, and a reasoned decision on the timeliness issue. We therefore vacate the district court's decision and remand the case to the PER Board with instructions to enter a decision on the timeliness issues in accordance with the principles set forth herein. DECISION OF THE DISTRICT COURT VACATED; REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.