Categories:
Apr 20, 2021

Iowa Court Says “Near Miss” Report Can Serve as Notice of Injury to Employer

Affirming a decision by an Iowa district court that found, under the circumstances of the case, that the employee had provided the employer with sufficient notice of injury pursuant to Iowa Code § 85.23, a state appellate court held that where an employee strikes his head and determines that the incident warrants the completion and submission of a written report—here identified by the employer as a “Near Miss Report”—the employer was fairly put on notice that the employee was likely in some degree of pain and that a claim for benefits might later be filed [John Deere Davenport Works v. Dickerson, 2021 Iowa App. LEXIS 275 (Apr. 14, 2021)]. That the particular form was used for multiple purposes did not negate the fact that the employer was on notice.

Background

In this contested claim proceeding, the employer contended that Dickerson failed to provide notice of injury within the 90-day prescribed period required under Iowa Code § 85.23. The employer acknowledged that Dickerson did complete a report, known as a “Near Miss Report,” in which Dickerson indicated he had been “working on an unfamiliar fixture from normal daily task when [he] was moving from one welt to another on [his] stool and his [his] head on the fixture.” The employer argued that Dickerson’s statement lacked any claim that he was hurt or damaged.

The district court granted Dickerson benefits, finding that the report was sufficient notice to the employer. The employer appealed.

Dickerson Often Hit His Head

The employer argued that if Dickerson had reported that he “hit his head and it hurt,” rather than just that he “hit his head,” there would have been sufficient notice. The employer stressed that in Dickerson’s work, he hit his head almost every day.

Appellate Court Counters

The appellate court noted, however, that in those many other instances in which Dickerson hit his head, he had not filed a “Near Miss Report.” That he did on this occasion showed that something unusual had indeed happened. The court further acknowledged that employees used the “Near Miss Report” for a host of reasons. It also noted that this particular report didn’t so much point out that Dickerson nearly hit his head, as it pointed to a situation in which Dickerson had hit his head.

Written Report Was Notice

The court continued that the fact that a written report was completed, regardless of its title, put the employer on notice that an incident had occurred and gave it the opportunity to investigate. The court stressed that the purpose of section 85.23 was to alert the employer to the possibility of a claim so that an investigation of the facts could be made while the information was fresh. Under these circumstances, the employer was was fairly on notice about the possibility of a claim. If it needed clarity as to whether Dickerson was injured in the incident, it could have reached out to him to ask. It chose not to do so. The district court’s decision was affirmed.

Comment

This decision is entirely within the dominant rule that not much is required to constitute notice of injury to the employer [see Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 126.01, et seq.] In most jurisdictions, the time limitations regarding the actual filing of a claim are more strictly observed. As to notice of injury to the employer, however, a claimant generally faces a very low bar. In the instant case, the appellate court stressed that no particular importance should be placed on the “label” given to a document. Here, the fact that the “Near Miss Report” was utilized for various things was no obstacle. An employer need not have a report labeled, “Notice of Injury.” Employers should also be aware that a written notice or report is unnecessary if the employer should reasonably be aware of the possibility of a claim filing following any incident.

The informal nature of workers’ compensation—particularly at a pre-hearing point—should be noted here as well. Once one takes the position that some sort of formal notice to the employer is required, that theory of informality is jettisoned. Need the employee seek legal counsel for every cut finger, bumped head, or sore back? The answer: Of course not.