 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Green v. Drivers Management2/15/2002
or obvious error."
[17-19] Section 48-180 is the statutory embodiment of nunc pro tunc principles. Fay v. Dowding, Dowding, supra. The office of an order nunc pro tunc is to correct a record which has been made so that it truly records the actions had, which, through inadvertence or mistake, was not truly recorded. Id., citing Interstate Printing Co. v. Department of Revenue, 236 Neb. 110, 459 N.W.2d 519 (1990). However it is not the function of an order nunc pro tunc to "'change or revise a judgment or order, or to set aside a judgment actually rendered, or to render an order different from the one actually rendered, even though such order was not the order intended.'" 261 Neb. at 226, 623 N.W.2d at 295, quoting Interstate Printing Co. v. Department of Revenue, supra.
Green would have us believe that the trial judge's statement in the award that Green was entitled to payment of medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident and the judge's statement during trial that ongoing medical benefits will not be awarded if they are not necessitated by the accident and injury indicated that the judge intended to award Green future medical expenses and that it was merely a clerical error for the judge not to clearly include it.
In Thornton v. Grand Island Contract Carriers, 262 Neb. 740, 634 N.W.2d 794 (2001), we held that if future medical expenses are not part of a final award, the judgment is final, and any future claims for medical expenses related to the same accident are absolutely barred unless the requirements of § 48-141 are met. Since the award in that case contained no language that could be reasonably construed to provide for future medical benefits, the plaintiff's claim was barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-140 (Reissue 1998).
An order nunc pro tunc may be supported by the judge's notes, court files, other entries of record, or other evidence, oral or written, which is sufficient to establish that the order is required to make the record reflect the truth. See Continental Oil Co. v. Harris, 214 Neb. 422, 333 N.W.2d 921 (1983). In this case, however, the order did not make the record reflect what was actually decided, because nothing in the language of the award indicates that the trial judge intended to grant Green future medical benefits. Additionally, § 48-141 is not applicable. Thus, we determine that the trial judge erred in modifying the award through the order nunc pro tunc which allowed Green to recover future medical payments.
We accordingly affirm, as a matter of law pursuant to Thornton v. Grand Island Contract Carriers, supra, the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing and vacating the compensation court's award of future medical benefits.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing and vacating the award of permanent partial disability benefits, as there was no competent medical evidence of permanent impairment or causation between the accident and symptoms Green currently complains of. We also affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing and vacating the award of future medical benefits through the order nunc pro tunc, as it was improper as a matter of law. Because there was no evidence Green was permanently impaired, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the award of vocational rehabilitation, as one cannot be considered unable to return to work for the purposes of vocational rehabilitation if he or she is not permanently impaired.
Affirmed in part, and in part reversed.
|