 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Widtfeldt v. Eaton Corp.12/23/2003
an award granting Widtfeldt benefits. Among its findings, the court determined that Widtfeldt suffered a 30-percent loss of earning power as a result of the back injury and that Widtfeldt was entitled to vocational rehabilitation services, future medical expenses, and reimbursement for mileage expenses.
On April 3, 2003, a review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court entered an order affirming in part and remanding in part the trial court's decision. The review panel found that the amended petition's allegations set forth above were sufficient to raise the issues of vocational rehabilitation and future medical expenses, and it affirmed the bulk of the trial court's award. The review panel found, however, that the trial court failed to provide a meaningful decision addressing Vickers' claim of entitlement to a credit against benefits for payments made in lieu of compensation, and the review panel remanded the matter to the trial court for findings on that issue. Vickers has now appealed to this court.
III. ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR
On appeal, Vickers has assigned 10 errors, which we consolidate for discussion to 4. Vickers asserts that the review panel erred in remanding the issue concerning Vickers' entitlement to a credit against benefits for payments made in lieu of compensation. Vickers asserts that the review panel erred in failing to reverse the trial court's finding of a 30-percent loss of earning capacity. Vickers asserts that the review panel erred in failing to reverse the awards for vocational rehabilitation and future medical expenses. Vickers asserts that the review panel erred in failing to reverse the award of reimbursement for mileage expenses.
IV. ANALYSIS
1. Standard of Review
An appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside a Workers' Compensation Court decision only when (1) the compensation court acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by fraud; (3) there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order, judgment, or award; or (4) the findings of fact by the compensation court do not support the order or award. Owen v. American Hydraulics, 258 Neb. 881, 606 N.W.2d 470 (2000); Brummer v. Vickers, Inc., 11 Neb. App. 691, 659 N.W.2d 838 (2003); Brouilette v. DBV Enters., 9 Neb. App. 757, 619 N.W.2d 482 (2000).
In determining whether to affirm, modify, reverse, or set aside a judgment of the Workers' Compensation Court review panel, a higher appellate court reviews the findings of the single judge who conducted the original hearing. Owen v. American Hydraulics, supra; Brummer v. Vickers, Inc., supra. Upon appellate review, the findings of fact made by the trial judge of the compensation court have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Id.
If the record contains evidence to substantiate the factual conclusions reached by the trial judge in workers' compensation cases, an appellate court is precluded from substituting its view of the facts for that of the compensation court. Miller v. E.M.C. Ins. Cos., 259 Neb. 433, 610 N.W.2d 398 (2000); Brummer v. Vickers, Inc., supra. Regarding questions of law, an appellate court in workers' compensation cases is obligated to make its own determinations. Id.
2. Credit for Severance Package
Vickers first challenges the review panel's decision to remand to the trial court the issue of whether Vickers is entitled to any credit against benefits for payments made to Widtfeldt pursuant to a severance package issued when the Vickers plant closed. Vickers argues entitlement to such a credit and asserts that the pay
Page 1 2 3 4 5 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|