1. An original proceeding for benefits under chapter 10A, subchapter III, this chapter, or
chapter 85A or 85B, shall not be maintained in any contested case unless the proceeding is
commenced within two years from the date of the occurrence of the injury for which benefits
are claimed or, if weekly compensation benefits are paid under section 10A.315, within three
years from the date of the last payment of weekly compensation benefits. For the purposes
of this section, “date of the occurrence of the injury” means the date that the employee knew
or should have known that the injury was work-related.
2. An award for payments or an agreement for settlement provided by section 10A.315 for
benefits under this chapter or chapter 85A or 85B, where the amount has not been commuted,
may be reviewed upon commencement of reopening proceedings by the employer or the
employee within three years from the date of the last payment of weekly benefits made under
the award or agreement. If an award for payments or agreement for settlement as provided
by section 10A.315 for benefits under this chapter or chapter 85A or 85B has been made and
the amount has not been commuted, or if a denial of liability is not filed with the workers’
compensation commissioner and notice of the denial is not mailed to the employee, in the
form and manner required by the commissioner, within six months of the commencement of
weekly compensation benefits, the commissioner may at any time upon proper application
make a determination and appropriate order concerning the entitlement of an employee to
benefits provided for in section 85.27. The failure to file a denial of liability does not constitute
an admission of liability under chapter 10A, subchapter III, this chapter, or chapter 85A or
85B.
3. Notwithstanding chapter 17A, the filing with the workers’ compensation commissioner
of the original notice or petition for an original proceeding or an original notice or petition to
reopen an award or agreement of settlement provided by section 10A.315, for benefits under
this chapter or chapter 85A or 85B is the only act constituting commencement for purposes
of this section.
4. No claim or proceedings for benefits shall be maintained by any person other than the
injured employee, or the employee’s dependent or legal representative if entitled to benefits.
[S13, §2477-m34; C24, 27, 31, 35, 39, §1386, 1457; C46, 50, 54, 58, 62, 66, 71, 73, 75, 77,
§85.26, 86.34; C79, 81, §85.26; 82 Acts, ch 1161, §3]
83 Acts, ch 105, §3; 84 Acts, ch 1067, §15; 98 Acts, ch 1061, §3, 11; 2017 Acts, ch 23, §4, 24;
2021 Acts, ch 76, §17; 2023 Acts, ch 19, §1742
Referred to in §10A.315, 85.27, 85.34, 85.35, 85.59, 85.72
\n
Notes of Decisions
Orr v. Lewis Cent. Sch. Dist., 298 N.W.2d 256 (Iowa 1980).
· cites it 108× “Claimant John William Orr filed a petition for arbitration in June 1978, seeking benefits for headaches which he alleged he suffered as the result of a work-connected incident in May 1975 when he was struck on the back of the neck by a falling plank.”
Bruce Baker v. bridgestone/firestone & Old Repub. Ins., 872 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 2015).
· cites it 24× “See ' Iowa Code § 85.26 . Normally, in the absence of an' express grant of interpretive authority, we must determine whether the legislature has nonetheless “clearly vested the agency with authority to interpret the statutes at issue.”
Dillinger v. City of Sioux City, 368 N.W.2d 176 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 24× “2d 256 (Iowa 1980), which involved the applicability of the discovery rule to the limitation period in section 85.26. On remand the Commissioner determined the proceeding was filed in a timely manner because the employee did not discover his injury until 1977.”
Herrera v. IBP, Inc., 633 N.W.2d 284 (Iowa 2001).
· cites it 8× “See Iowa Code § 85.26 (1995) (requiring that any claim for benefits under chapter 85 be filed within two years of the date of injury).”
McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1985).
· cites it 11× “In this appeal McKeever and Lumberman’s advance several propositions: (1) the compensation claim is barred by sections 85.26 and 85.23 of the Iowa Code of 1981 (references are to that Code); (2) in any event Smith is not entitled to healing period benefits; (3) if compensation…”
Ranney v. Parawax Co., Inc., 582 N.W.2d 152 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 10× “" Iowa Code § 85.26 (1). We have interpreted this statute to mean that the injury occurs when it is discovered.”
Gates v. John Deere Ottumwa Works, 587 N.W.2d 471 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 19× “26(2) (authorizing review of award upon timely commencement of review-reopening proceedings). By early 1988 Gates knew of his back injury and its com-pensable nature, yet he made no claim for benefits under section 85.”
IBP, Inc. v. Burress, 779 N.W.2d 210 (Iowa 2010).
· cites it 6× “See Iowa Code § 85.26 (1); see also Swartzendruber v.”
Bergen v. Iowa Vets. Home, 577 N.W.2d 629 (Iowa 1998).
· cites it 18× “See Iowa Code § 85.26 (1)(1989). The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the industrial commissioner on appeal, and again by the district court on judicial review.”
— Iowa Code § 85.26(1) — 29 cases
McKeever Custom Cabinets v. Smith, 379 N.W.2d 368 (Iowa 1985).
“In this appeal McKeever and Lumberman’s advance several propositions: (1) the compensation claim is barred by sections 85.26 and 85.23 of the Iowa Code of 1981 (references are to that Code); (2) in any event Smith is not entitled to healing period benefits; (3) if compensation…”
Bruce Baker v. bridgestone/firestone & Old Repub. Ins., 872 N.W.2d 672 (Iowa 2015).
“See ' Iowa Code § 85.26 . Normally, in the absence of an' express grant of interpretive authority, we must determine whether the legislature has nonetheless “clearly vested the agency with authority to interpret the statutes at issue.”
— Iowa Code § 85.26(2) — 18 cases
Bergen v. Iowa Vets. Home, 577 N.W.2d 629 (Iowa 1998).
“See Iowa Code § 85.26 (1)(1989). The ALJ’s decision was affirmed by the industrial commissioner on appeal, and again by the district court on judicial review.”
— Iowa Code § 85.26(3) — 1 case
— Iowa Code § 85.26(6) — 1 case
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.