 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Arbtin v. Puritan Manufacturing Co.5/17/2005
r and employee, while at the same time not creating a windfall for the employee." Brief for appellees on cross-appeal at 19. However, it has long been held that "the Legislature enacted the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act to relieve injured workers from the adverse economic effects caused by a work-related injury or occupational disease." Williamson v. Werner Enters., 12 Neb. App. 642, 652, 682 N.W.2d 723, 731 (2004). "In light of this beneficent purpose, we must give the act a liberal construction." Id.
Further, the Legislature has already addressed the use of abnormally high workweeks in average weekly wage calculations. In ยง 48-126, the Legislature provided: "The calculation shall also be made with reference to the average earnings for a working day of ordinary length and exclusive of earnings from overtime." Therefore, by excluding a worker 's higher rate of pay for overtime from the calculation of the worker's average weekly wage, the Legislature has already dealt with the possible inequity that could result from abnormally high workweeks in the context of average weekly wage calculations. In light of this, as well as the beneficent purpose of the Workers' Compensation Act, we decline to extend the holding of Canas v. Maryland Cas. Co., 236 Neb. 164, 459 N.W.2d 533 (1990), to abnormally high workweeks. Therefore, we find that the review panel properly reversed the trial court's calculation of Arbtin's average weekly wage. Puritan and Columbia's assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
Finding that the review panel properly reversed the trial court's computation of Arbtin's average weekly wage and properly affirmed the trial court's finding that Arbtin failed to prove his herniated cervical disk occurred as a result of his work-related accident, we affirm the order of the review panel in its entirety.
Affirmed.
|