 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Merrill v. Griswold's2/8/2005
rill returned to work on December 4, 2000, with restrictions and that on December 26, Messer released him to work without restrictions. Because Merrill was able to go back to Griswold's after the November surgery and perform the same work for which he had previous training and experience, Merrill is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation, and the trial court erred in finding otherwise. It was not until after Merrill's second surgery in March 2002 that he was unable to return to work. The trial court found that the second surgery was not related, and therefore, Merrill was not entitled to an award of vocational rehabilitation because his inability to work at the time of trial was not the result of a work-related injury. See Weichel v. Store Kraft Mfg. Co., 10 Neb. App. 276, 634 N.W.2d 276 (2001) (holding that claimant was not entitled to award of vocational rehabilitation services, because evidence showed claimant's inability to work at time of trial was not result of work-related injury, but, rather, was result of unrelated surgery). Therefore, we modify the trial court's award to state that Merrill is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation.
Failure to Comply With Rule 11
Griswold's also states that the trial court's award fails to comply with rule 11 because the trial court's findings of fact and conclusions of law are not based on the whole record. The relevant portion of rule 11 states, "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." Given our conclusions above that the court did not err in any of its findings or conclusions except those in regard to Merrill's entitlement to vocational rehabilitation, we find that the trial court's order does comply with rule 11 and that this assignment of error is without merit.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court did not err in finding that Merrill sustained injuries as a result of work-related accidents in April and October 2000 or in deferring ruling on Merrill's entitlement to permanent benefits and Merrill's loss of earning capacity. We modify that portion of the trial court's award regarding vocational rehabilitation to be consistent with this opinion. In all other respects, the trial court's award is affirmed.
Affirmed as modified.
|