Justia Government & Administrative Law Opinion Summaries

Employee suffered a shoulder injury arising out of the course of his employment with Employer. Employee subsequently resigned his employment with Employer and began working for another company. Employee later filed a petition against Employer in the compensation court, seeking temporary total disability (TTD) benefits. The compensation court awarded Employee TTD benefits for the periods he was unable to work due to postsurgery restrictions. The Supreme Court affirmed the award of TTD benefits, holding that an employee who leaves a job with an employer responsible for an injury in order to pursue more desirable employment does not waive TTD benefits simply because the employer responsible for the injury would have accommodated light-duty restrictions during postsurgical recovery periods necessitated by the injury. View "Zwiener v. Becton Dickinson-East" on Justia Law

Lozier Corporation (Lozier) claimed that the Douglas County Board of Equalization (Board) overvalued three parcels of land it owned. Lozier mailed three appeals to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC). Although Lozier mailed the appeals before the filing deadline, TERC did not receive the appeals until after the deadline had passed. TERC dismissed the appeals as untimely, concluding that the mailing did not meet the requirements under Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-5013(2). At issue on appeal was whether a postage meter stamp is a "postmark" for purposes of section 77-5013(2). The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) a postage meter stamp is a "postmark" within the meaning of section 77-5013(2); and (2) therefore, Lozier's mailing met the jurisdictional requirements under section 77-5013(2). View "Lozier Corp. v. Douglas County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

United States Cold Storage (Cold Storage) and Sanitary and Improvement District No. 59 of Sarpy County (SID 59) filed complaints challenging separate annexation ordinances enacted by the City of La Vista. The ordinances at issue were ordinance 1142 and ordinance 1107, together which purported to annex SID 59 in its entirety, including an industrial area. The district court found in favor of La Vista on all claims. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err in upholding the validity of both ordinance 1007 and ordinance 1142 adopted by La Vista for the annexation of SID 59. View "U.S. Cold Storage, Inc. v. City of La Vista" on Justia Law

Appellant was injured during the course of his employment with Employer. Appellant obtained a workers' compensation award that covered future medical treatment. Appellant subsequently underwent knee replacement surgery and sought a further award of benefits. The Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) denied the petition, finding that Appellant's knee replacement surgery was not established to be the product of the subject accident but, rather, was prompted by Appellant's preexisting degenerative knee condition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the evidence provided sufficient competent evidence to support a finding that Appellant's knee replacement surgery was not the result of the work-related accident, and therefore, the WCC did not err in finding that Appellant's surgery was not compensable; and (2) in so holding, the WCC was not acting contrary to the original award but was enforcing the award's plain language. View "Pearson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Milling Co." on Justia Law

Butler County Diary, LLC (BCD) requested a permit to install a liquid livestock manure pipeline under a public road. Read Township and Butler County cited two regulations it had adopted governing livestock confinement facilities in denying BCD's request. BCD challenged the regulations, alleging that the regulations were invalid and unenforceable. The district court ruled that the Township had the statutory authority to enact the regulations and that they were not preempted by the Livestock Waste Management Act or Nebraska's Department of Environmental Quality livestock waste control regulations. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the Township had the statutory authority to enact the pertinent regulations and the regulations were not preempted by state statute or regulation. View "Butler County Dairy, LLC v. Butler County" on Justia Law

Employee, an undocumented worker, was injured while working for Employer. Employee was awarded temporary total disability benefits. Employer later petitioned the workers' compensation court to discontinue the temporary benefits. While the action was pending, Employee returned to his county of origin. The compensation court concluded (1) Employer's obligation to pay Employee temporary total disability should cease because Employee had reached maximum medical improvement; and (2) there was no credible evidence which could be used to determine Employee's loss of earning capacity in his new community, and therefore, Employee's request for benefits for his claim of permanent impairment and loss of earning capacity was denied. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the compensation court's conclusion that Employee had reached maximum medical improvement; but (2) reversed the denial of Employee's claim of permanent impairment and loss of earning capacity because where no credible data exists for the community to which the employee has relocated, the community where the injury occurred can serve as the hub community. Remanded. View "Visoso v. Cargill Meat Solutions" on Justia Law

While in the course and scope of her employment, Appellant suffered and injury and incurred medical expenses. The Workers' Compensation Court ordered Appellant's employer (Employer) to pay the expenses. Employer made payments directly to Appellant's health care providers within thirty days of the court's order. Because she was not personally reimbursed for the medical expenses within thirty days, Appellant sought a waiting-time penalty, attorney fees, and interest pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-125. The Workers' Compensation Court denied relief, and Appellant appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because section 48-125 did not apply to Appellant's request for a waiting-time penalty, the compensation court did not err in overruling her motion for a waiting-time penalty; and (2) Employer in this case was not subject to liability for attorney fees, and therefore, Appellant was not entitled to an award of interest. View "VanKirk v. Cent. Cmty. Coll." on Justia Law

Appellee, an LLC, sought a refund from Kearney County of a portion of its 2006 personal property taxes, alleging the taxes were paid as the result of an honest mistake or misunderstanding. The County Board of Supervisors denied the refund. The district court sustained Appellee's petition in error and ordered the County to refund $480,411 to Appellee pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 77-1734.01, concluding that Appellee had paid the taxes as the result of an honest mistake or misunderstanding. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that because Appellee paid the 2006 personal property taxes based upon a mistake of law, section 77-1734.01 afforded it no relief, and therefore, the district court erred in determining that Appellee was entitled to a refund. View "Kaapa Ethanol, LLC v. Kearney County Bd. of Supervisors" on Justia Law

Appellant owned a convention center. In the 2009 and 2010 tax years, the conference center was valued by the Sarpy County assessor at $23,400,000. Appellant protested that valuation to the Sarpy County Board of Equalization, which denied the request. The Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) denied Appellant's appeal and valued the conference center at the amount previously valued by the county assessor. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that TERC did not err in affirming the valuation of the property because Appellant failed to meet its burden of showing that the county's valuation was unreasonable and arbitrary, and therefore, TERC's decision was lawful, was supported by competent evidence, and was not arbitrary or capricious. View "JQH La Vista Conference Ctr. Dev. LLC v. Sarpy County Bd. of Equalization" on Justia Law

Law Firm represented Employee in a workers' compensation action against Employee's Employer. After a trial, Employee was awarded compensation, including medical expenses incurred by Employee with Medical Clinic. Employer paid sums owed to Medical Clinic pursuant to the award. Law Firm subsequently filed a complaint against Medical Clinic, seeking attorney fees under the common fund doctrine. Following a hearing, the district court dismissed Law Firm's complaint, concluding that Law Firm was not permitted to recover attorney fees from Medical Clinic under the doctrine. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the plain language of Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-125(2)(a) prohibits the charging of attorney fees against medical providers in workers' compensation court; and (2) the common fund doctrine may not be applied in this case to allow Law Firm a fee from Medical Clinic from the district court when it would not be entitled to such a fee from the workers' compensation court. View "Walentine, O'Toole, McQuillan & Gordon, LLP v. Midwest Neurosurgery, PC" on Justia Law