 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Widtfeldt v. Eaton Corp.12/23/2003
ments made pursuant to the severance package "were intended for care" and "constituted wages." Brief for appellant at 22. Claiming such, Vickers asserts that the review panel erred because it should have reversed the trial court's decision and should have awarded a credit against benefits, rather than remanding the issue.
Vickers spends considerable space in its brief on appeal arguing that the payments made pursuant to the severance package should be considered compensation and that such payments should entitle Vickers to a credit against benefits. Vickers does not, however, address the fact that this precise issue was already resolved in April by this court. In Brummer v. Vickers, Inc., 11 Neb. App. 691, 659 N.W.2d 838 (2003), Vickers also argued that payments made pursuant to another plaintiff's severance package when the plant closed should be considered wages in lieu of compensation and that such payments should entitle Vickers to a credit or setoff. Despite our specific holdings in Brummer--that the record lacked any evidence indicating Vickers' intent regarding the severance payment and that, absent such evidence, Vickers was accordingly not entitled to a credit against benefits--Vickers has chosen to put forth the exact same argument in this appeal, where the record similarly fails to contain any evidence whatsoever to suggest that Vickers intended the severance package to be made in lieu of workers' compensation benefits.
We note that Vickers was represented by the same counsel in Brummer v. Vickers, Inc., supra, and the instant case. We also note that our decision in Brummer was issued on April 8, 2003. Vickers' petition for further review by the Nebraska Supreme Court was overruled on June 18. Thus, when Vickers filed the brief in the instant case, our decision in Brummer was more than 3 months old and Vickers had known for almost 1 month that the Supreme Court had refused to further consider the matter. Nonetheless, Vickers failed to even acknowledge the decision in Brummer when submitting its brief in the instant case, which raises the identical issue and sets forth the same argument. For the reasons set forth in Brummer, we again reject Vickers' assertions and find this assignment of error to be meritless.
3. Loss of Earning Capacity
Vickers next asserts that the review panel erred in not reversing the trial court's finding that Widtfeldt suffered a 30-percent loss of earning capacity. Vickers' arguments to support this assertion generally consist of challenges to the trial court's factual conclusions about Widtfeldt's loss of earning capacity. We find no merit to Vickers' assertion.
The record indicates that Widtfeldt's treating physician signed a letter indicating his agreement with the restrictions detailed in a report prepared by Widtfeldt's chiropractor. The record indicates that Widtfeldt's attorney prepared the letter for the treating physician to sign, that the letter specifically referenced the chiropractor's report, and that a copy of the chiropractor's report was attached to the letter. We conclude that the trial court was justified in relying on this letter, as it contained a sufficient factual basis for the treating physician's opinion that the restrictions detailed by the chiropractor were accurate. Compare Liberty v. Colonial Acres Nsg. Home, 240 Neb. 189, 481 N.W.2d 189 (1992) (marking "x" on questionnaire that lacked any factual basis was insufficient to show causation).
Likewise, the record contains the opinions of Widtfeldt's treating physician and his chiropractor, both affirming that Widtfeldt suffered injuries requiring permanent physical restrictions. The record further contains several reports from a voca
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.
|
|