Dutcher v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.
| Decision Date | 09 September 2022 |
| Docket Number | S-21-740 |
| Citation | 312 Neb. 405 |
| Parties | SUZETTE D. DUTCHER, APPELLANT. v. Nebraska Department of Correctional Services, Appellee. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
1. Summary Judgment: Appeal and Error. An appellate court affirms a lower court's grant of summary judgment if the pleadings and admitted evidence show that there is no genuine issue as to any material facts or as to the ultimate inferences that may be drawn from the facts and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
2. __:__. In reviewing a summary judgment, an appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the judgment was granted, and gives that party the benefit of all reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence.
3. Judgments: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of law. When reviewing questions of law, an appellate court has an obligation to resolve the questions independently of the conclusion reached by the trial court.
4. Workers' Compensation: Jurisdiction: Legislature. As a statutorily created court, it is the role of the Legislature to determine what acts fall within the Workers' Compensation Court's exclusive jurisdiction.
5. Workers' Compensation: Legislature. The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act creates rights which did not exist at common law, and the Legislature may place such restrictions thereon as it sees fit.
6 Statutes. Statutes relating to the same subject matter are to be construed together so as to maintain a consistent and sensible scheme.
7. __ . Statutory interpretation begins with the text, and the text is to be given its plain and ordinary meaning.
8. Statutes: Legislature. It is a fundamental canon of statutory construction that words generally should be interpreted as taking their ordinary meaning at the time the Legislature enacted the statute.
9. __: __ . When the Legislature uses legal terms of art in statutes, such terms should be construed and understood according to their accepted legal meaning.
10. Statutes: Appeal and Error. An appellate court will not resort to interpretation of statutory language to ascertain the meaning of words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous.
11. __:__. An appellate court is not at liberty to add language to the plain terms of a statute to restrict its meaning.
12. Statutes: Courts: Appeal and Error. An appellate court does not sit as a superlegislature to review the wisdom of legislative acts.
13. Fair Employment Practices: Discrimination: Intent. Employment discrimination laws such as those found in the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act have not vested in the Nebraska courts the authority to sit as super personnel departments reviewing the wisdom or fairness of the business judgments made by employers, except to the extent that those judgments involve intentional discrimination.
14. Workers' Compensation. The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act covers personal injury or death caused to an employee by accident or occupational disease, arising out of and in the course of his or her employment, without regard to the negligence of the employer.
15. Workers' Compensation: Torts: Intent. There is no intentional tort exception to the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act.
16. Workers' Compensation: Torts. Under the workers' compensation statutes, employees give up the complete compensation that they might recover under tort law in exchange for no-fault benefits that they quickly receive for most economic losses from work-related injuries and the employer receives immunity from common-law suit.
17. Workers' Compensation: Immunity. The reason for an employer's immunity is the quid pro quo by which the employer gives up his or her normal defenses and assumes automatic liability, while the employee gives up his or her right to common-law verdicts.
18. Workers' Compensation. When an employee sustains an injury that arises out of and in the course of his or her employment and such injury is covered by the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, then the employee surrenders his or her right to any other method, form, or amount of compensation or determination thereof for that injury against his or her employer or the workers' compensation insurer.
Appeal from the District Court for Red Willow County: David W Urbom, Judge. Affirmed.
Tanya J. Hansen, of Smith, Johnson, Allen, Connick & Hansen, for appellant.
Douglas J. Peterson, Attorney General, James A. Campbell Solicitor General, and Phoebe L. Gydesen for appellee.
Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, Funke, Papik, and Freudenberg, JJ.
An employee of the Nebraska Department of Correctional Services (Department) was injured while participating in mandated self-defense training. The employee sought and received workers' compensation benefits from the time she was injured, including vocational rehabilitation. The employee was ultimately unable to find a position with the Department that would accommodate her physical restrictions, and her employment was terminated. She brought suit against the Department for wrongful termination on the basis of her disability, in violation of the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act (NFEPA).[1]The district court found that the exclusivity provisions of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act[2] provide the sole remedy for the employee against the Department in this situation, barring the employee's claim. The employee appeals. We affirm.
Suzette D. Dutcher began working for the Department in February 2002 as a corporal. In 2009, she changed jobs within the Department, becoming a chemical dependency counselor. In 2010, Dutcher became a supervisor of the chemical dependency counselors.
Being a supervisor meant that Dutcher's job became more administrative, but she still had contact with inmates when she mediated disagreements between counselors and inmates, taught classes, and conducted facility walk-throughs as part of her "officer of the day" duties. Dutcher testified in her deposition that she was required to maintain certification in "level 3" pressure point control tactics (PPCT) training. This training included self-defense techniques such as take-downs, ground fighting, and kicking. PPCT training was required yearly, and Dutcher was required to demonstrate different PPCT techniques that included kicking and kneeling in order to maintain her certification. PPCT training and certification was not explicitly listed in the supervisor job description or in an operational memorandum describing "officer of the day" duties.
In April 2015, Dutcher suffered an injury to her right knee while completing PPCT training. Dutcher timely notified the Department of her injury. Her medical expenses associated with the injury were covered through the State of Nebraska's third-party administrator for workers' compensation claims.
Dutcher initially engaged in physical therapy, which was unsuccessful. Dutcher had her first surgery in July 2015. In September 2015, Dutcher was able to return to her job with physical restrictions. The physical limitations included no stooping, twisting, or bending her right knee; no squatting, crawling, or kneeling; no kicking or hitting; and no running. Because of her physical restrictions, the Department required Dutcher to have a level 3 PPCT-certified employee with her when she conducted rounds or any time she interacted with inmates.
After returning to work, Dutcher had more surgeries in September 2015, June 2018, and August 2018. Dutcher received regular payments for temporary total disability starting in August 2015.
In September 2016, Dutcher received a letter from the Department advising her that 1 year had elapsed since work restrictions had been imposed and that since work restrictions remained, pursuant to Department policy, she had 90 days to find a new position or be terminated from her current position. After failing to find another position within the Department that could accommodate her physical restrictions, Dutcher's employment was terminated in December 2016. The Department explained that Dutcher was unable to fulfill the regular duties of her position. Dutcher admitted in her deposition that she was not physically capable of performing level 3 PPCT tactics or takedown techniques.
In March 2017, Dutcher was declared by her doctor to be at maximum medical improvement, with a permanent impairment rating and permanent work restrictions. Dutcher's permanent work restrictions included no lifting over 20 pounds; no stooping, twisting, bending, squatting, crawling or kneeling; limits on the amount of walking, standing, and climbing; and no physical contact with inmates.
Rather than accepting the workers' compensation carrier's payment to close the claim based on Dutcher's reaching her maximum medical improvement, Dutcher elected to exercise her right to appointment of a vocational rehabilitation counselor. The Workers' Compensation Court approved Dutcher's election to participate in a vocational rehabilitation plan.
Dutcher's appointed vocational rehabilitation counselor indicated in her initial report that Dutcher may qualify for some social services jobs based on Dutcher's transferable skills, but that she would not likely earn wages comparable to what she was making at the time of her injury. After conducting market research regarding Dutcher's current educational level and qualifications, the counselor determined that Dutcher would need to secure additional education within her field or look at a new field to gain skills for future employment. Dutcher and her counselor decided the best plan was to pursue an associate degree in business administration. The counselor developed a vocational rehabilitation...
To continue reading
Request your trial