Opinion ID: 1301336
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Latent Injuries.

Text: The majority concludes that a single event accident claim must be brought within one year of the date of accident and then states [t]he date the worker first became aware of some defect, or ill effect, from the job-related accident was the date the one year period ... to file his claim began to run. That statement appears to be inconsistent with the rest of the opinion, but is consistent only because the majority had earlier concluded that workers are always aware of ill effects caused by single event accidents. The majority, citing Stillwater Floral, states that when a single event accident occurs the injury itself is not latent for some ill effect, however trivial, will be or should be immediately recognizable. This appears to create a rule of law that a latent injury cannot, under any conceivable circumstance, occur in a single event accident. In Stillwater Floral the court did not hold that a single event accident precludes the possibility of a latent injury. The court did find in that case that: [t]he injury itself was not of a latent nature. Id. at 697. The court apparently found the injury was not latent because the worker was aware that he had sustained an accidental injury and that he had some ill effects therefrom at least as early as the morning of January 16, 1960 [the morning after the accident]. Id. Finding the absence of a latent injury because of that claimant's awareness is not the same as proclaiming that one cannot occur in a single event accident. The Stillwater Floral court did not define latent injury. The Supreme Court of the State of Alaska has defined it thus: The term `latent injury' has a generally accepted meaning, and we hold in accordance therewith that an injury is latent so long as the claimant does not know, and in the exercise of reasonable diligence (taking into account his education, intelligence and experience) would not have come to know, the nature of his disability and its relation to his employment. W.R. Grasle Company v. Alaska Workmen's Compensation Board, 517 P.2d 999, 1002 (Alaska 1974). (Footnotes omitted). When a worker does not know, or could not know with reasonable diligence, the nature of his disability and its relation to his job such injury is latent using the above definition. However, this definition is inconsistent with the Stillwater Floral language. The majority position is correct in holding that prior case law equates awareness of an ill effect with awareness of an injury. In Stillwater Floral the court finds the injury was not latent based on the claimant's awareness of an ill effect. Consistent with the Stillwater Floral approach this court equated awareness of an ill effect with awareness of an injury in Munsingwear, Inc. v. Tullis, 557 P.2d 899 (Okl. 1976). Under the circumstances of a cumulative effect accident, the accidental injury, which accompanies the accident, occurs (1) at the time of claimant's awareness, or discovery, of a `defect' or `ill effect' caused to the claimant; Id., 557 P.2d at 903. Although a worker may be aware of some ill effect from an accident, and thus the limitations period would begin to run under Stillwater Floral, he might not know, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence be able to know, that he has a compensable injury. The majority's response to the latent injury problem would impose on the worker a duty to protect his rights by filing a timely claim if he is but aware of a potential injury. I disagree for two reasons: (1) Employers are concerned with the filing of groundless claims and frequently keep histories of individuals' propensities in that regard. Employees aware of this are reluctant to file claims based on fleeting jolts or pains; if the occurrence turns out to be nothing serious the record of the filing could be a basis for not getting hired in the future. The question of whether to file or not will present a real dilemma for the worker. (2) The courts already have enough business to preside over. I would prefer to discourage the filing of compensation claims until a worker knows or reasonably should know that he has suffered a compensable work related injury.