Helpful Hints
  • (1) You can search the entire content of Dean’s by phrase or by individual words. Just type your keywords into the search box and then pull down the search icon on the right and choose the option you need: search by word or by phrase or reset the content.
  • (2) Double click on a word in the content of a definition, and if the word is listed as a keyword in Dean’s, it will look that word up.
  • (3) You can use the search function to help jump the scrolling function. Simply type the first 2-3 letters into the search box then hit enter on your keyboard and the scroll will go to those Keywords that begin with those letters and allow you to scroll from there.

 Knowledge is imputed to a claimant when he gains information sufficient to alert a reasonable person of the need to investigate. See Estate of Montag, 509 N.W.2d at 470; Franzen, 377 N.W.2d at 662. As of that date he is on inquiry notice of all facts that would have been disclosed by a reasonably diligent investigation. See Franzen, 377 N.W.2d at 662. 

Once a claimant knows or should know that his condition is possibly compensable, he has the duty to investigate. See Roth v. G.D. Searle Co., 27 F.3d 1303, 1307 (8th Cir. 1994) (holding that inquiry notice began when the plaintiff 'knew or should have known of her injuries and their possible connection to her IUD') (emphasis added) (applying Iowa law); Jones v. Maine Cent. R.R., 690 F. Supp. 73, 75-77 (D. Me. 1988) (holding, as a matter of law, that statute of limitations commenced when plaintiffs were diagnosed with hearing loss and 'thought,' 'suspected,' or 'presumed' it resulted from workplace noise). The purpose of the investigation is to ascertain whether the known condition is probably, as opposed to merely possibly, compensable. 

In Brazzell v. United States, 633 ...

Register or login to access full content