A Virginia Appellate Court determined that a police officer’s knowledge of a special heart-lung presumption that favors officers did not trigger the two-year statute of limitations on his injuries, so he could claim benefits on an older diagnosis. He knew about this presumption in 2009 and 2010, and was diagnosed with cardiac issues in 2011. However, since at the time of his diagnosis he did not know that his heart issues might be associated with work-related stress, the statue of limitations did not begin to run until he found out.

Kahikina worked as a policy officer with the City of Newport News in Virginia. He began having heart problem2 in 2004. In October 2011 a physician diagnosed him as suffering from an irregular heartbeat, but attributed the condition to Kahikina’s consumption of Red Bull. In 2015 he experienced chest pains and was hospitalized. He underwent a stress echocardiogram and was diagnosed with “unstable angina with large area of ischemia”. He had a stent implanted as well. He was released to return to work.

In 2017 he was hospitalized again for chest pain that he experienced after responding to a custody dispute. A cardiologist performed another catheterization but noted no new disease, so the cardiologist indicated he had concerns that work stress could be a factor in the officer’s condition.

Based on that 2017 injury, he filed a pro se claim for benefits on August 8, 2017. By the time the case got to the court he had 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 his 2015 diagnosis of coronary artery disease triggered the two-year statute of limitations for claims, and his 2017 claim was sufficient to put the parties on notice of a claim for heart disease and was indeed timely.

The court acknowledged the employer’s argument that since he had received the heart-lung presumption in 2009 and 2010, it was up to him to file for heart disease within two years of his 2011 diagnosis because he knew about the disease and the statute. They said that the employer missed part of the equation – did he know his disease was caused by his employment at that time? They determined he did not because he only found out after the June 2017 incident and prior to that his doctors had attributed his condition to other illnesses and lifestyle choice.

The court rejected the employer’s argument. He knew about the presumption but did not know about the causal link between his employment and diagnosed heart conditions.

Read more here.