 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Green v. Drivers Management2/15/2002
d is a question of fact to be determined by the trial judge, and that determination will not be disturbed by an appellate court unless the judge's finding is clearly erroneous. See Willuhn v. Omaha Box Co., 240 Neb. 571, 483 N.W.2d 130 (1992).
The question is, therefore, whether the Court of Appeals erred in affirming the trial judge's decision that Green was entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits in light of our determination that Green had not submitted evidence of impairment.
We agree with DMI's assignment of error that the Court of Appeals erred as a matter of law in allowing the award of vocational rehabilitation to stand absent a finding of permanent impairment. 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 § 48-162.01(3) indicates, if one is able to return to work, he or she is not entitled to vocational rehabilitation.
In construing a statute, appellate courts are guided by the presumption that the Legislature intended a sensible rather than absurd result in enacting the statute. Fay v. Dowding, Dowding, 261 Neb. 216, 623 N.W.2d 287 (2001).
To hold that a worker can receive vocational rehabilitation benefits absent a finding that the worker is permanently impaired does not amount to a sensible reading of the statute. Thus the factual findings, in light of § 48-162.01, do not support a finding that Green is entitled to vocational rehabilitation as a matter of law or fact. Accordingly, we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals' opinion upholding Green's award for vocational rehabilitation.
Order Nunc Pro Tunc
On March 23, 2000, the trial judge entered its award in favor of Green. The award did not address the issue of future medical care. On April 3, in response to a motion filed by Green, the trial judge issued an order nunc pro tunc modifying the award which stated, "[Green] will require additional medical care and treatment for which is liable." The review panel affirmed the entire award, including the order nunc pro tunc. The Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the award ordering DMI to reimburse Green for past and future medical bills as vague and overbroad, but it did not address whether the compensation court had the statutory authority to enter the order nunc pro tunc.
[15,16] The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court, as a statutory tribunal, is a court of limited and special jurisdiction and possesses only such authority as is delineated by statute. See Crabb v. Bishop Clarkson Mem. Hosp., 256 Neb. 636, 591 N.W.2d 756 (1999). The only Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act provisions that permit a judge to modify or change previously issued orders are Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-141 and 48-180 (Reissue 1998). Sheldon-Zimbelman v. Bryan Memorial Hosp., 258 Neb. 568, 604 N.W.2d 396 (2000). Section 48-141 allows an award to be modified because of an increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury. Since the order nunc pro tunc in the case at hand is not related to an increase or decrease in Green's incapacity, we look to § 48-180.
Section 48-180 provides that the compensation court may, "on its own motion, modify or change its findings, order, award, or judgment at any time before appeal and within ten days from the date of such findings, order, award, or judgment for the purpose of correcting any ambiguity, clerical error, or patent
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Nebraska Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|