Justia Labor & Employment Law Opinion Summaries

Appellant Thomas Pearson was struck by a forklift and was later determined to have been injured in the course of his employment with Archer-Daniels-Midland Milling Company (ADM). The workers' compensation court entered an award granting Pearson, among other benefits, certain future medical expenses. Pearson subsequently had a total knee replacement and sought reimbursement from ADM for those expenses as well as for expenses relating to a back injury. After ADM declined to pay the expenses, Pearson filed a motion to compel payment. A further award was entered (1) denying Pearson's motion with respect to the knee replacement but ordering ADM to pay expenses relating to the treatment of the back injury, and (2) applying the workers' compensation court's fee schedule to payments for the back injury, which had previously been paid by Pearson's health insurer. The workers' compensation court review panel affirmed. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the trial court incorrectly found that the original order denied knee replacement, and (2) the trial court did not err in applying the fee schedule to any reimbursement to a third party. Remanded.

The Commission of Industrial Relations was presented with an industrial dispute between the Professional Firefighters Association of Omaha, Local 385, and the City of Omaha. Prior to resolution of the industrial dispute, the Commission issued a status quo order requiring the City to adhere to the employment terms in place at the time. Local 385 then instituted proceedings in the district court, alleging that the City was in violation of the status quo order. The district court entered an order (1) finding that the City was in violation of the status quo order by failing to retain the required minimum number of fire personnel, and (2) determining that the City was not in violation of the status quo order by failing to maintain a specific number of fire captains based on the Commission's previous determination that the issue was one of management prerogative. The City appealed and Local 385 cross-appealed. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding the appeal was moot because the industrial dispute between the parties had been resolved in an order that also dissolved the status quo order.

Employee was injured and began receiving disability benefits. Later, Employer and its workers' compensation insurance carrier (collectively Employer) stopped paying Employee benefits because of his lack of cooperation in obtaining treatment and adhering to his pain rehabilitation program. Employee petitioned for past-due benefits, rehabilitation, and future medical treatment. On February 29, 2008, the workers' compensation court ordered Employee to refrain from abusive communications and to enroll in a pain rehabilitation program. On March 28, 2008, the court dismissed Employee's petition and terminated his benefits for contempt and unreasonably refusing to cooperate. Later, Employee filed a further petition in the workers' compensation court, seeking further benefits. The trial court entered an order on January 10, 2010 vacating the March 28 order. A review panel affirmed and remanded to the trial court, holding that the workers' compensation court had no authority under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act to terminate Employee's right to future benefits for contemptuous behavior. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that a compensation court is not authorized to dismiss a petition as a sanction for a party's conduct either because an injured worker failed to cooperate with treatment or rehabilitation or as an exercise of contempt authority.

Joni Mueller, an employee of the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS), sought workers' compensation benefits after she suffered a whole body injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. At issue was how to calculate Mueller's average weekly wage for workers' compensation purposes. As a school employee, Mueller worked only during the school year and did not work during summer vacation, but her salary was spread out so that she was paid every month of the year, including the summer months. The trial court determined the the basis of calculation should be what Mueller earned during the six months before her injury, not necessarily what she was paid, and awarded Mueller temporary and permanent disability benefits based upon its determinations. The review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court affirmed the award. On appeal, the reversed, holding that the trial court erred in not calculating Mueller's average weekly wage based upon her actual weekly income. Remanded.