Three important cases have recently come down from the Nebraska Supreme Court regarding workers’ compensation claims.
Probably the case with the biggest impact is Maroulakos v. Walmart case. In that case, the Supreme Court affirmed a decision by the trial court that found that an injury was not compensable when a worker was injured because of an “idiopathic” fall. What makes this case distinct from its predecessors is that it appears as though there was possibly evidence that there was an increased risk to the injured worker, which could have made the idiopathic fall compensable. However, the trial court did not explore that option and the Supreme Court found that it could not make a determination on an issue that was not at issue during the trial court. In other words, it appears that the Maroulakos case puts an extra burden on the Plaintiff to ensure that an “increased danger” analysis is overtly pled and argued at trial for idiopathic falls. The concurrence in that opinion hints that the at the trial court level, the court probably should have conducted an analysis as to whether there was an increased-danger when there was evidence presented that could contribute to that analysis of an idiopathic fall.
Another recent case was Dragon v. Cheesecake Factory. In Dragon, the work comp case reached a settlement that was accomplished via a settlement release under Section 48-139(3). The settlement was not paid, however, within the 30-day limit proscribed in 48-139(4) and thus, the Plaintiff argued that he was entitled to a 50% penalty for the late payment. The trial court denied the penalty under a theory that it did not have authority to award a penalty after the release had already been signed. The Supreme Court overturned the finding of the trial court and awarded the penalty based on the fact that the Nebraska Legislature cleared up any ambiguity in the statute in awarding penalties for settlements that are not paid within 30 days.
The final case that recently came down worth discussing is Gimple v. Student Transp of America. In Gimple, there are two take-aways. First, if there is a third-party action, along with the work comp claim, the Work Comp Court does not authority to make a determination of future credits for the employer or work comp carrier based on any monies paid in that their-party action.
Second, if there is a stipulation and no dispute as to an injury; then, there is a permanent impairment assigned to that injury, the Defendant must pay the permanent partial disability in a timely manner, within 30 days. In other words, there is no reasonable controversy.