 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Queme v. IBP6/21/2005
t review panel, the appellate court reviews the findings of the trial judge who conducted the original hearing. Owen v. American Hydraulics, 258 Neb. 881, 606 N.W.2d 470 (2000). When analyzing the sufficiency of the evidence to support findings of fact made by the Workers' Compensation Court trial judge, the evidence must be considered in the light most favorable to the successful party, who also receives the benefit of all inferences that may be drawn from the evidence. See Miner v. Robertson Home Furnishing, 239 Neb. 525, 476 N.W.2d 854 (1991).
VI. ANALYSIS
1. Did Trial Court's Award Comply With Rule 11?
(a) Rule 11 Proposition
Relying on the Nebraska Supreme Court's decision in Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (2003), Ana contends that because the trial court's award failed to address the issues of vocational rehabilitation and temporary partial disability benefits, the award did not comply with rule 11(A), which provides:
All parties are entitled to reasoned decisions which contain findings of fact and conclusions of law based upon the whole record which clearly and concisely state and explain the rationale for the decision so that all interested parties can determine why and how a particular result was reached. The judge shall specify the evidence upon which the judge relies. The decision shall provide the basis for a meaningful appellate review.
In Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, supra, the Nebraska Supreme Court found that there was a jurisdictional question as to the finality of the Workers' Compensation Court trial judge's order, because certain matters--medical expenses, waiting-time penalties, and attorney fees--were not expressly addressed in the award. The Dawes court stated that when the trial court's order expressly reserves issues for later determination, such is not a final, appealable order. However, the Supreme Court said that if the order was meant to be a final determination of the rights and liabilities of the parties, the silence of the court on the requests for relief not spoken to must be construed as a denial of those requests under the circumstances. The Supreme Court noted though that while the omissions of the trial judge are not fatal to the finality of the award, such may constitute grounds for reversal or remand for failure of the award to comply with rule 11. Thus, if the failure of the trial judge to clearly determine the issue precludes meaningful appellate review, the cause may be remanded to the trial judge with directions to enter an order complying with the requirements of rule 11.
(b) Request for Vocational Rehabilitation
Ana alleges that the trial judge's award here did not comply with rule 11, because the trial judge failed to address her request for vocational rehabilitation. In order to determine whether the order here complied with rule 11, we review the prerequisites for an award of vocational rehabilitation. In Green v. Drivers Mgmt., Inc., 263 Neb. 197, 639 N.W.2d 94 (2002), the Nebraska Supreme Court found that a worker is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits absent a finding that the worker is permanently impaired. The Green court said:
Without a finding of permanent medical impairment, there can be no permanent restrictions. Without impairment or restrictions, there can be no disability or labor market access loss. Absent permanent impairment or restrictions, the worker is fully able to return to any employment for which he or she was fitted before the accident, including occupations held before the injuries occurred. As [Neb. Rev. Stat.] ยง 48-162.01(3) [(Reissue 1998)] indicat
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nebraska Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|