Virginia Police Officer’s Knowledge of Special Heart-Lung Presumption Does Not Trigger Statute of Limitations
Where a Virginia police officer in 2009 and 2010 signed acknowledgments that he had received a copy of Virginia’s special heart-lung presumption favoring police officers and certain others, the state’s two-year statute of limitations [see Va. Code § 65.2-406(A)(6)] nevertheless was not triggered by a 2011 diagnosis that the officer suffered an irregular heartbeat and other cardiac issues, which the examining physician attributed to the officer’s consumption of Red Bull, a highly caffeinated beverage, held a state appellate court [City of Newport News v. Kahikina, 2020 Va. App. LEXIS 49 (Feb. 25, 2020)]. In spite of the officer’s apparent knowledge of the presumption, the limitations period did not begin to run until he was advised, many years later, that his heart issues might be associated with work-related stress.
Background
Kahikina, a police officer with the City of Newport News, began having heart problems in 2004. In October 2011, a physician diagnosed Kahikina as suffering from an irregular heartbeat, but attributed the condition to Kahikina’s consumption of a Red Bull. In 2015, Kahikina experienced chest pain and was hospitalized for several days. A cardiologist performed a stress echocardiogram and diagnosed Kahikina with “unstable angina with large area of ischemia,” as well as other conditions. Two separate cardiac catheterizations were performed and the physicians implanted a stent. Eventually, however, he was released to return to work.
On June 24, 2017, Kahikina was hospitalized for chest pain that he experienced after responding to a custody dispute. A cardiologist performed yet another cardiac catheterization, but noted no new disease. In his report, the cardiologist indicated that he had concerns that work stress was a factor in Kahikina’s condition.
Based on the June 2017 injury, Kahikina filed a pro se claim for benefits on August 8, 2017. By counsel, Kahikina filed another claim for benefits on February 20, 2018, alleging “heart disease” as his injured body part and “heart disease—2 vessel occlusion” as his occupational disease. A deputy commission ultimately found in favor of Kahikina and entered an award for temporary wage benefits and lifetime medical benefits. The Commission affirmed, determining that Kahikina’s 2015 diagnosis of coronary artery disease triggered the two-year statute of limitations for claims and that Kahikina’s 2017 claim was sufficient to put the parties on notice of a claim for heart disease and was therefore timely. The City appealed.
Appellate Court Decision
The court acknowledged the ingenious argument offered by the employer, that since Kahikina received a copy of the heart-lung presumption in 2009 and 2010, it was incumbent upon him to file for heart disease within two years of his 2011 diagnosis because at that point he knew that he had heart disease and knew about the statute. The court stressed that the employer’s argument missed one critical component of the equation — whether Kahikina knew that his disease was caused by his employment. Citing Garrison v. Prince William Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 220 Va. 913, 916, 265 S.E.2d 687 (1980), the court said the statute of limitations does not begin to run until a claimant suffers an occupational disease that arises out of the employment.
The court stressed that here, Kahikina found out years after his initial diagnosis that the condition was causally related to his employment as a police officer. Prior to June 2017, Kahikina’s doctors attributed his heart disease to his lifestyle choices and other illnesses.
The court rejected the employer’s argument that Kahikina’s receipt of a copy of the statute in 2009 and 2010 informed him that heart disease was a compensable occupational disease. Providing Kahikina with a copy of the statute merely served to inform him that the presumption existed; it did nothing to inform Kahikina that a causal link existed between his employment and his diagnosed heart conditions.