 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Meredith v. Schwarck Quarries8/9/2005
ble to perform suitable work for which he has previous training or experience." We find that the record supports the court's findings and that these findings are sufficient to establish that Meredith was permanently totally disabled. Accordingly, we find that a determination that Meredith was permanently totally disabled is not clearly wrong.
5. Vocational Rehabilitation Services
Finally, Schwarck argues that the trial court was "clearly wrong to state that [this court] affirmed [the trial court's] conclusion that [Meredith] was entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits." We find that Schwarck is correct that we did not affirm the trial court's original award of vocational rehabilitation services. However, we find that such error is harmless.
The trial court's original order awarded vocational rehabilitation services to Meredith on the basis of a finding that Meredith was permanently partially disabled. On appeal, we could not conduct a meaningful appellate review without an order from the trial court that complied with rule 11. See Meredith v. Schwarck Quarries, Inc., No. A-01-1318, 2002 WL 1315376 (Neb. App. June 18, 2002) (not designated for permanent publication). We did not address whether the trial court erred in awarding vocational rehabilitation services, because we could not determine whether the court erred in awarding permanent partial disability benefits, a prerequisite for awarding vocational rehabilitation services.
However, on remand, the trial court determined that Meredith was permanently totally disabled and again awarded vocational rehabilitation services. Neb. Rev. Stat. ยง 48-162.01(3) (Supp. 1999) provides in part:
When as a result of the injury an employee is unable to perform suitable work for which he or she has previous training or experience, he or she is entitled to such vocational rehabilitation services, including job placement and retraining, as may be reasonably necessary to restore him or her to suitable employment.
Based on the trial court's determination that Meredith is permanently totally disabled, an award of vocational rehabilitation services is not in error.
V. CONCLUSION
We find that the trial court was not clearly wrong in determining that Meredith was temporarily totally disabled through May 12, 2000. We further find that the review panel did not err in affirming the trial court's award of temporary total disability benefits. We also find, contrary to the review panel's holding, that the trial court, on remand, was not prohibited from modifying its original award of permanent partial disability benefits and awarding permanent total disability benefits. Finally, because Meredith is entitled to permanent total disability benefits, the trial court's award of vocational rehabilitation services is not in error. The matter is remanded to the review panel with directions to enter an order consistent with this opinion.
Affirmed in part, and in part reversed.
|