NWCDN Members regularly post articles and summary judgements in workers’ compensations law in your state.
Select a state from the dropdown menu below to scroll through the state specific archives for updates and opinions on various workers’ compensation laws in your state.
Contact information for NWCDN members is also located on the state specific links in the event you have additional questions or your company is seeking a workers’ compensation lawyer in your state.
An employee could not recover permanent partial disability for injury to two members in the same accident. The employee’s injuries occurred before the operative date of the amendment to Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-121(5), which allowed recovery for a loss of earning capacity under certain circumstances where an employee sustains injury to two members in the same accident, rather than the prior recovery which was based on impairment and the established schedule. The amendment was substantive and the LOEC option for recovery when two members are injured in the same accident is only available for injuries occurring after January 1, 2008.
Smith v. Mark Chrisman Trucking, 285 Neb. 826 (2013).
A claim by an employee injured by the willful negligence of the employer is subject to the exclusive remedy provision and the employee can only recover under the Workers’ Compensation Act. In this case, the employer told the employee to shovel grain in a grain elevator. The employee died of asphyxiation. Though the Court found the employer’s actions to be egregious, the employee was limited to recovery for workers’ compensation and not in tort.
Estate of Teague v. Crossroads Co-Op Assn., 286 Neb. 1 (2013).
A settlement check sent 42 days after a release of liability form (for a settlement where Court review is not required) was filed with the compensation court was not subject to the 50% waiting time penalty for late payment after more than 30 days after the entry of an award, judgment, or decree. The employee waives a right to penalty by filing the release.
Holdsworth v. Greenwood Farmers Co-op, 286 Neb. 49 (2013).
Plaintiff claimed bilateral shoulder injuries on the same date. Defendant admitted bilateral shoulder injuries. The parties stipulated that claimant sustained bilateral shoulder injuries, and said stipulation was incorporated in the trial court’s pretrial order. However, upon review of the evidence, the trial court rejected the stipulation (and Defendant’s admissions) and found that the left shoulder was not compensable, and therefore, claimant was not permanently totally disabled. The Court of Appeals reversed, indicating there was no good cause to reject the stipulation even if the evidence supported a finding the left shoulder was not compensable. It remanded for a determination of the extent of any permanent disability as a result of the agreed-upon bilateral shoulder injury.
Cervantes v. Omaha Steel Castings Co., 20 Neb. App. 695 (2013).