Adams v. Cargill Meat Solutions
| Decision Date | 23 June 2009 |
| Docket Number | No. A-08-975.,A-08-975. |
| Citation | 17 Neb. App. 708,774 N.W.2d 761 |
| Parties | Ashley ADAMS, appellee, v. CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Court of Appeals |
James D. Hamilton and Amanda A. Dutton, of Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, L.L.P., Lincoln, for appellant.
Jon Rehm, of Rehm, Bennett & Moore, P.C., L.L.O., Lincoln, for appellee.
Cargill Meat Solutions (Cargill) appeals an order of a three-judge review panel for the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court. Cargill argues that the review panel erred in affirming the trial court's determination that Ashley Adams was entitled to certain benefits as a result of her work-related injury. Specifically, Cargill argues that the trial court's award of future medical expenses to Adams was not supported by sufficient evidence.
Upon our review, we find that Adams failed to present sufficient evidence to prove that future medical treatment will be reasonably necessary to relieve the effects of her work-related injury. As such, we find that the review panel erred in affirming the trial court's award of future medical expenses. We reverse, and remand to the review panel with directions to reverse the award of future medical expenses and remand the matter to the trial court to modify the award in accordance with this opinion.
On March 18, 2005, Adams was working at Cargill as a scale operator when several boxes fell off of a pallet and hit her. As a result of this incident, Adams suffered injuries to the right side of her back.
On December 7, 2006, Adams filed a petition alleging that she had been injured in the scope and course of her employment with Cargill. She indicated that she injured her "lower right back" and that she continues to experience pain in her back and pain and numbness in her right leg. Adams requested temporary disability benefits; permanent disability benefits; payment of medical expenses; vocational rehabilitation benefits; and waiting-time penalties, attorney fees, and interest.
On December 22, 2006, Cargill filed an answer. Cargill alleged that if Adams suffered any disability, it did not arise out of or in the course of her employment at Cargill. Cargill stated that payments had been made to Adams for all medical, surgical, and hospital expenses and for all compensation benefits to which Adams was entitled.
On September 18, 2007, a trial was held. Prior to the admission of evidence, the parties informed the trial court that they would stipulate that on March 18, 2005, Adams did sustain an accident arising out of and in the course and scope of her employment with Cargill. The parties then presented evidence concerning Adams' medical treatment since the time of the accident, the degree of Adams' impairment, and the cause of Adams' ongoing pain.
On December 7, 2007, the trial court entered an award of benefits. The court found that Adams suffered a "chronic sprain of her lower back" as a result of her work-related accident. The court also found that Adams sustained a 5-percent loss of earning power as a result of the accident and ordered Cargill to pay Adams permanent disability benefits. The court also ordered Cargill to pay Adams for medical expenses she had incurred prior to the time of trial and for future medical expenses.
In awarding Adams payment for future medical expenses, the trial court noted:
On December 21, 2007, Cargill filed an application for review before a three-judge review panel of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court, seeking a reversal of the trial court's award. Cargill alleged, among other things, that the trial court erred in finding that Adams was entitled to an award of future medical expenses.
In its August 19, 2008, order, the review panel affirmed the trial court's award of future medical expenses. The panel pointed to evidence in the record which suggested that Adams continued to take medication for her back injury at the time of the trial. The panel then concluded:
Because that medication is a prescription medication, [the trial court] inferred that at least one of [Adams'] physicians was continuing to prescribe it for her and [the trial court] also inferred from [Adams'] continued use of the medication that it would continue into the future. The review panel believes that such an inference is permissible and the finding of an entitlement to future medical care may be made without specific expert testimony on the subject.
Cargill appeals from the order of the review panel here.
On appeal, Cargill argues that the review panel erred in affirming the trial court's award of payment for future medical expenses associated with Adams' work-related injury.
An appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside a Workers' Compensation Court decision only when (1) the compensation court acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by fraud; (3) there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order, judgment or award; or (4) the findings of fact by the compensation court do not support the order or award. Cruz-Morales v. Swift Beef Co., 275 Neb. 407, 746 N.W.2d 698 (2008).
On appellate review, the factual findings made by the trial judge of the Workers' Compensation Court have the effect of a jury verdict and will not be disturbed unless clearly wrong. Money v. Tyrrell Flowers, 275 Neb. 602, 748 N.W.2d 49 (2008).
The trial court awarded Adams payment for future medical expenses associated with her work-related injury. The court indicated that in awarding payment of future medical expenses, it relied upon evidence that Adams "continues to take various prescription medications for her ongoing back pain" and a medical report which stated that Adams "has been taking ... medications." On appeal, Cargill argues that this evidence is insufficient to establish that future medical treatment will be reasonably necessary to relieve the effects of Adams' work-related back injury. We agree.
Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-120(1)(a) (Cum. Supp.2008) authorizes an award of future medical expenses, including necessary medication. Section 48-120(1)(a) provides, "The employer is liable for all reasonable, medical, surgical, and hospital services, including ... medicines as and when needed, which are required by the nature of the injury and which will relieve pain or promote and hasten the employee's restoration to health and employment ...."
In construing § 48-120(1)(a), the Nebraska Supreme Court has emphasized that before an order for future medical benefits may be entered, there should be a stipulation of the parties or evidence in the record to support a determination that future medical treatment will be reasonably necessary to relieve the injured worker from the effects of the work-related injury. See Foote v. O'Neill Packing, 262 Neb. 467, 632 N.W.2d 313 (2001).
In this case, the parties did not stipulate to an award of future medical expenses. As such, there must be evidence in the record to support the trial court's determination that future medical treatment will be reasonably necessary to relieve the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bortolotti v. Universal Terrazzo & Tile Co.
...treatment is reasonably necessary to relieve the injured worker from the effects of the work-related injury. Adams v. Cargill Meat Solutions, 17 Neb. App. 708, 774 N.W.2d 761 (2009). Once it has been determined that the need for future care is probable, the employer is liable for any future......
-
Martinez v. Cmr Constr. & Roofing Of Texas
...Creighton University , supra note 2. See, also, § 48-185.31 Hull v. Aetna Ins. Co. , supra note 3.32 Id.33 Adams v. Cargill Meat Solutions , 17 Neb. App. 708, 774 N.W.2d 761 (2009).34 RFD-TV v. WildOpenWest Finance , 288 Neb. 318, 849 N.W.2d 107 (2014).35 Id.36 Daimler AG v. Bauman , 571 U.......
-
Tchikobava v. Albatross Express, LLC
...treatment is reasonably necessary to relieve the injured worker from the effects of the work-related injury. Adams v. Cargill Meat Solutions, 17 Neb.App. 708, 774 N.W.2d 761 (2009). In the current case, there was no stipulation between the parties regarding an award of future medical treatm......
-
Wilson v. Waste Connections, Inc., A-14-1162.
...treatment is reasonably necessary to relieve the injured worker from the effects of the work-related injury. Adams v. Cargill Meat Solutions, 17 Neb. App. 708, 774 N.W.2d 761 (2009). The parties here did not stipulate to the need for future medical care. Therefore, the compensation court co......