State News : Nebraska

NWCDN is a network of law firms dedicated to protecting employers in workers’ compensation claims.

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.


Caswell, Panko & Westerhold, LLC

In Wissing v. Walgreen Company, 20 Neb. App. 334 (2012), the Nebraska Court of Appeals addressed the latent and progressive exception to the two-year statute of limitations in workers’ compensation cases.  Claimant had a compensable shoulder injury in January 2007.  He reached MMI with permanent impairment in March 2008; there was a notation the claimant would continue to have some shoulder pain.  In July 2010, more than two years from the date of last payment of compensation, claimant had an increase in pain over what he expected.  He was ultimately diagnosed with a cervical condition.  The trial court found that the conditions were latent and progressive, and thus were not barred by the statute of limitations, because the petition was filed within two years of the time the condition became apparent, and the Court of Appeals affirmed.  While claimant was told to expect a certain amount of continuing pain in his shoulder, he had an increase in pain that was unexpected, which was when the condition was apparent.  One medical expert opined that the neck injury was compensable as a result of the 2007 incident because of the reported symptomsat the time of the initial diagnosis, even though only a shoulder injury was diagnosed.  This suggests the neck condition was reasonably discoverable at that time (since he had symptoms suggesting it).  However, the Court of Appeals analyzed it from the claimant’s perspective and the misdiagnosis or incomplete diagnosis at the time of injury did not make the condition reasonably discoverableby the claimant at that time, even if it may have been reasonably discoverable by the physician.