Jacobitz v. Cooperative
| Decision Date | 27 December 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. S-13-091.,S-13-091. |
| Citation | 841 N.W.2d 377,287 Neb. 97 |
| Parties | John Jacobitz, appellee, v. Aurora Cooperative, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Workers' Compensation Court: J. Michael Fitzgerald, Judge. Appeal dismissed, and cause remanded for further proceedings.
Patrick R. Guinan, of Erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., for appellant.
Jacob M. Steinkemper, of Brock Law Offices, P.C., L.L.O., for appellee.
1. Judgments: Appeal and Error. An appellate court independently reviews questions of law decided by a lower court.
2. Judgments: Jurisdiction. A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual dispute presents a question of law.
3. Jurisdiction: Final Orders: Appeal and Error. For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the party must be appealing from a final order or a judgment.
4. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25–1902 (Reissue 2008), an appellate court may review three types of final orders: (1) an order that affects a substantial right and that determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) an order that affects a substantial right made during a special proceeding, and an order that affects a substantial right made on summary application in an action after a judgment is rendered.
5. Workers' Compensation: Appeal and Error. A party can appeal an order from the Workers' Compensation Court if it affects the party's substantial right.
6. Final Orders. Substantial rights under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25–1902 (Reissue 2008) include those legal rights that a party is entitled to enforce or defend.
7. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. A substantial right is affected if an order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order from which an appeal is taken.
8. Final Orders: Appeal and Error. When multiple issues are presented to a trial court for simultaneous disposition in the same proceeding and the court decides some of the issues, while reserving other issues for later determination, the court's determination of fewer than all the issues is an interlocutory order and is not a final order for the purpose of an appeal.
9. Workers' Compensation: Final Orders: Legislature: Intent: Appeal and Error. Permitting employers to appeal from an adverse ruling before the Workers' Compensation Court has determined benefits is inconsistent with the Legislature's intent to provide prompt benefits to injured workers.
10. Workers' Compensation: Judgments: Final Orders. From the date of this decision, a Workers' Compensation Court's finding of a compensable injury or its rejection of an affirmative defense without a determination of benefits is not an order that affects an employer's substantial right in a special proceeding.
This workers' compensation appeal presents a jurisdictional issue: Did the appellant, Aurora Cooperative (Co-op), appeal from a final order? In a bifurcated proceeding, the trial court determined that the appellee, John Jacobitz, was injured in the scope of his employment. Although the court had reserved the issue of benefits for later determination, the Co-op appealed.
Our case law has been inconsistent on the finality of workers' compensation orders when an employer appeals from an adverse ruling. We now clarify that such rulings are not final and appealable until the trial court determines benefits for the prevailing claimant. We dismiss the appeal.
Jacobitz sustained a traumatic brain injury when he fell off a flatbed truck driven by Jerry Overturf, the location manager for the Co-op's facility in Ong, Nebraska. The Co-op had just hosted a customer appreciation supper, and Jacobitz was helping to clean and put away a large grill. Overturf towed the grill to a shed on the Co-op's property, and Jacobitz and another manager helped Overturf put the grill inside. Jacobitz then hopped on the back of the flatbed truck for a ride back to the community center where the event was held. He fell off about half a block later.
The primary dispute at trial was whether Jacobitz was injured in the scope of his employment. The court granted Jacobitz' motion to bifurcate the trial. Jacobitz had argued that he had not yet reached maximum medical improvement but that the court could first decide whether he was injured in the scope of his employment. At the start of the trial, the court stated, and the parties agreed, that they were trying only the issue of liability. The parties disputed whether Overturf asked Jacobitz to come and help host the event or whether he was told only that he could come if he wished. They also disputed whether the Co-op or its vendors had sponsored the event.
In its “Award” order, the court found that Jacobitz believed that he had to attend, or that it would be in his best interests to attend the event. The court found that Jacobitz' testimony was the best explanation for why he would have driven to his home 30 miles away to clean up and come back to the event, despite having a family and not earning high wages. It rejected the Co-op's argument that it had not sponsored the event. The court also found that the Co-op had received a substantial benefit from the event and had also benefited from Jacobitz' assistance. It concluded that Jacobitz was injured in an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment.
The court issued its order on January 28, 2013. At the end of the order, the court scheduled a telephone conference for February 4 to set a trial date to determine benefits. The Co-op filed its notice of appeal on February 1.
The Co-op assigns, restated and reduced, that the trial court erred as follows: (1) finding that Jacobitz was injured in the scope of his employment; (2) finding that the customer appreciation supper was a regular incident of employment; (3) assigning liability because Jacobitz subjectively believed he had to attend the supper and that his attendance would be to his benefit; (4) finding that the Co-op received a substantial benefit from the supper and Jacobitz' attendance and assistance, absent evidence of a “direct” benefit to the Co-op; (5) entering an “Award” based on facts that were irrelevant, clearly wrong, and insufficient; (6) receiving an exhibit into evidence over the Co-op's objection; and (7) failing to render a reasoned decision.
We independently review questions of law decided by a lower court. 1 A jurisdictional issue that does not involve a factual dispute presents a question of law.2
For an appellate court to acquire jurisdiction of an appeal, the party must be appealing from a final order or a judgment.3 Because workers' compensation proceedings are special proceedings,4 the issue is whether the court's order is final.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals ordered the parties to brief whether the trial court's order was final even though it had not yet determined benefits. The Co-op argues that the order affected a substantial right in a special proceeding because the order eliminated its complete defense to Jacobitz' claim. Jacobitz cites cases holding that the order was not final because the court reserved issues for later determination.
Under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 25–1902 (Reissue 2008), an appellate court may review three types of final orders: (1) an order that affects a substantial right and that determines the action and prevents a judgment, (2) an order that affects a substantial right made during a special proceeding, and (3) an order that affects a substantial right made on summary application in an action after a judgment is rendered.5
Only the second category is applicable here. A party can appeal an order from the Workers' Compensation Court if it affects the party's substantial right.6 Substantial rights under § 25–1902 include those legal rights that a party is entitled to enforce or defend.7 A substantialright is affected if an order affects the subject matter of the litigation, such as diminishing a claim or defense that was available to an appellant before the order from which an appeal is taken.8
But even in workers' compensation cases, we have held that when multiple issues are presented to a trial court for simultaneous disposition in the same proceeding and the court decides some of the issues, while reserving other issues for later determination, the court's determination of fewer than all the issues is an interlocutory order and is not a final order for the purpose of an appeal.9
The tension between these two rules—one delineating an affected substantial right and the other delineating interlocutory orders—has created two conflicting lines of cases dealing with final orders in workers' compensation appeals. In two cases, Nebraska appellate courts have permitted employers to appeal from the trial court's rejection of its “complete defense” to liability. 10 Although we did not define that term, in those cases, the complete defense was an affirmative defense, which, if it had been successful, would have permitted the employer to prevail even if the claimant proved that he or she sustained a work-related injury.11 But in cases where the employer's defense is that the claimant failed to prove a work-related injury, we have held that an appeal is interlocutory when the trial court has reserved issues for later determination.12
This troubling body of cases has created confusion whether an employer can appeal from a trial court's finding of liability, even if the court has reserved its decision regarding benefits. The confusion exists because a failure of proof defense (e.g., a defense that the claimant has not shown the injury occurred in the scope of employment) is also a complete defense to liability. But more important, interlocutory appeals conflict with the beneficent purpose of the Nebraska Workers'...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nichols v. Nichols
...Const. art. I, § 29. 2.In re Estate of McKillip, 284 Neb. 367, 820 N.W.2d 868 (2012). 3.Carney v. Miller, 287 Neb. 400, 842 N.W.2d 782 (2014). 4.Jacobitz v. Aurora Co–op., 287 Neb. 97, 841 N.W.2d 377 (2013). 5. See Strunk v. Chromy–Strunk, 270 Neb. 917, 708 N.W.2d 821 (2006). 6.Fitzgerald v......
-
In re Cain
...288 Neb. 196, 846 N.W.2d 634 (2014), citing In re Interest of Trey H., 281 Neb. 760, 798 N.W.2d 607 (2011); Jacobitz v. Aurora Co-op, 287 Neb. 97, 841 N.W.2d 377 (2013). ...
-
Martinez v. Cmr Constr. & Roofing Of Texas
...and CMR failed to appeal from that benefit.Martinez' assertion regarding this court’s jurisdiction is rooted in our decision in Jacobitz v. Aurora Co-op .21 In Jacobitz , we held that a compensation court’s finding of a compensable injury, or its rejection of an affirmative defense without ......
-
Carr v. Ganz
...disapproved on other grounds, Kimminau v. Uribe Refuse Serv., 270 Neb. 682, 707 N.W.2d 229 (2005). See, also, Jacobitz v. Aurora Co-op., 287 Neb. 97, 841 N.W.2d 377 (2013) (holding that compensation court’s finding of compensable injury or its rejection of affirmative defense without determ......