With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 16, 2003, and that this was more than ninety days prior to the date on which IBP received notice. IBP received notice of a potential claim by letter on April 13, 2004. The ninety-day notice period does not begin until Burress became aware of the compensable nature of his injury. See Orr, 298 N.W.2d at 257-58. The agency applied the discovery rule and held the ninety-day notice requirement did not begin to run until December 8, 2004, the date on which Dr. Nauseef wrote a letter asserting the causal link between brucellosis and IBP. This determination is not supported by substantial evidence because Burress was aware of the potential connection earlier, as indicated by the April 13, 2004 letter from Burress’ attorney alerting IBP to the potential claim. See Ranney, 582 N.W.2d at 156-57 (<HOLDING>). The record suggests Burress did not become

A: holding the discovery rule does not require an expert opinion of causation but instead limitations begin to run when the employee discovers the nature seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury or disease
B: holding the twoyear statute of limitations under iowa code section 8526 does not begin to run until the employee discovers or should discover in the exercise of diligence the nature seriousness and probable compensable character of the injury or disease
C: holding the time period for filling a claim does not begin to run until the claimant judged by the standard of a reasonable person recognizes the nature seriousness and probable compensable character of his injury
D: holding that a notice of claim period did not begin to run until discovery of the injury
A.