Roth v. Sarpy County Highway Dept.
| Decision Date | 02 January 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. S-97-366,S-97-366 |
| Citation | 253 Neb. 703,572 N.W.2d 786 |
| Parties | James A. ROTH, Appellee, v. SARPY COUNTY HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT, Appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Workers' Compensation: Appeal and Error. Pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 1993), 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. However, as to questions of law, an appellate court in workers' compensation cases is obligated to make its own determinations.
2. Workers' Compensation: Time. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-125 (Reissue 1993) authorizes a 50-percent penalty payment for waiting time where the employer fails to pay compensation after 30 days' notice of the disability and where no reasonable controversy exists regarding the employee's claim for benefits.
3. Workers' Compensation: Final Orders: Time. Waiting-time penalties, as provided in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-125 (Reissue 1993), apply to final adjudicated awards.
4. Workers' Compensation: Final Orders. In the absence of the filing of an application for review, an award entered by a single judge of the Workers' Compensation Court is final on the date that the award is entered.
5. Workers' Compensation: Time: Attorney Fees. The purpose of the 3O-day waiting-time penalty and the provision for attorney fees, as provided in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-125 (Reissue 1993), is to encourage prompt payment by making delay costly if the award has been finally established.
6. Workers' Compensation. The only legitimate excuse for delay in the payment of workers' compensation benefits is the existence of a genuine dispute from a medical or legal standpoint that any liability exists, and the fact that an employer is considering filing an application for review with no such application actually filed is not a sufficient reason to sustain a finding of genuine medical or legal doubt as to liability.
7. Workers' Compensation. In order to refrain from paying workers' compensation benefits and to avoid the penalty assessable under Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-125 (Reissue 1993), the employer must demonstrate that he or she has an actual basis, in law or fact, for disputing the employee's claim.
David A. Dudley and Darin J. Lang, of Baylor, Evnen, Curtiss, Grimit & Witt, Lincoln, for appellant.
Christopher D. Jerram, of Kelley, Lehan & Hall, P.C., Omaha, for appellee.
WHITE C.J., and CAPORALE, WRIGHT, CONNOLLY, GERRARD, STEPHAN and McCORMACK, JJ.
On June 17, 1996, a single judge of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court determined that James A. Roth was entitled to an award of workers' compensation benefits as a result of an injury he sustained while employed by the Sarpy County Highway Department (Department). The Department did not file an application for review of the award and paid benefits to Roth on July 19 and on August 14. On August 2, Roth filed a motion to assess a 50-percent waiting-time penalty and attorney fees against the Department for its failure to pay benefits within 30 days of the June 17 award. A single judge assessed a 50-percent penalty and attorney fees against the Department for its untimely August 14 payment of benefits. Roth, however, then filed an application for review of this determination, contending that
a 50-percent penalty and attorney fees should have also been assessed on the July 19 payment of benefits. Agreeing with Roth, a three-judge review panel of the compensation court assessed a 50-percent penalty and attorney fees against the Department for its untimely July 19 payment. The Department appeals. Because we conclude that the 30-day period for the payment of benefits commenced on the date the award was rendered on June 17, rather than on the date the 14-day statutory time for application for review of the award expired, we affirm the order of the Workers' Compensation Court assessing a 50-percent penalty and attorney fees against the Department for its untimely July 19 payment of benefits.
On November 22, 1995, Roth filed an action in the Workers' Compensation Court, seeking compensation benefits for injuries he sustained on April 4, 1993, while employed by the Department. After a hearing on the matter, a single judge of the Workers' Compensation Court determined that Roth was entitled to compensation benefits and entered an award on June 17, 1996. The Department elected not to file an application for review of the award and paid Roth benefits in the amount of $16,579.20 on July 19. Due to a miscalculation by the Department, this amount was not the total amount of benefits due and owing to Roth, and the Department subsequently made an additional payment to Roth in the amount of $9,790.13 on August 14.
On August 2, 1996, Roth filed a motion to assess a 50-percent waiting-period penalty and attorney fees against the Department for its failure to pay compensation benefits within 30 days of the award that was rendered on June 17. The compensation court trial judge determined that the Department's August 14 payment was delinquent and, thus, assessed a 50-percent penalty and attorney fees against the Department. Roth, however, filed an application for review of that determination, contending that the Department's payment on July 19 was also delinquent and should also have been subject to a 50-percent penalty and attorney fees. Agreeing with Roth, a three-judge review panel of the compensation court assessed a 50-percent penalty and attorney fees against the Department. The review panel found that the 30-day period for the payment of compensation benefits commenced on the date the award was rendered on June 17, rather than on the date the 14-day statutory time for application for review of the award expired, and thus, the July 19 payment of benefits was untimely. The Department appeals.
Pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 1993), 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. Acosta v. Seedorf Masonry, Inc., 253 Neb. 196, 569 N.W.2d 248 (1997); Sheridan v. Catering Mgmt., Inc., 252 Neb. 825, 566 N.W.2d 110 (1997). However, as to questions of law, an appellate court in workers' compensation cases is obligated to make its own determinations. Sheridan v. Catering Mgmt., Inc., supra; Winn v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 252 Neb. 29, 560 N.W.2d 143 (1997).
The Department's sole assignment of error is that the three-judge review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court erred in determining that the 30-day period for the payment of workers' compensation benefits commenced on the date the award was rendered, rather than on the date the 14-day statutory time for application for review of the award expired.
The Department asserts that an award is not final and enforceable until after the 14-day statutory time for application for review of the award expires, whether or not an application for review is actually filed. Thus Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-125(1) (Reissue 1993) provides in pertinent part that
the Department claims that the 30-day period for the payment of compensation benefits commences on the date the 14-day statutory time for application for review of the award expires, which effectively provides the Department 44 days to pay the compensation benefits. Roth, however, contends that the payment of compensation benefits is due 30 days from the date of the award because the Department elected not to file an application for review of the award and an award is final when issued, not 14 days later when the right to seek review expires. Therefore, we must determine the date an award of compensation benefits becomes final, in the absence of the filing of an application for review, for the purposes of commencing the 30-day period for the payment of workers' compensation benefits.
all amounts of compensation payable under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act shall be payable periodically in accordance with the methods of payment of wages of the employee at the time of the injury or death; Provided, fifty percent shall be added for waiting time for all delinquent payments after thirty days' notice has been given of disability. Whenever the employer refuses payment of compensation or medical payments subject to section 48-120, or when the employer neglects to pay compensation for thirty days...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Armstrong v. State
...at 553, 667 N.W.2d at 191. See, also, Gaston v. Appleton Elec. Co., 253 Neb. 897, 573 N.W.2d 131 (1998) ; Roth v. Sarpy Cty. Highway Dept., 253 Neb. 703, 572 N.W.2d 786 (1998).44 Brief for appellant at 40.45 Brief for appellee at 21.46 Pavel v. Hughes Brothers, Inc., 167 Neb. 727, 94 N.W.2d......
-
Soto v. State
...587 N.W.2d 687 (1999). Waiting-time penalties, as provided in § 48-125, apply to final adjudicated awards. Roth v. Sarpy Cty. Highway Dept., 253 Neb. 703, 572 N.W.2d 786 (1998). [9] Soto argues that because § 48-199 makes the State "liable in the same manner and to the same extent as a priv......
-
Anderson v. Omaha Public School Dist.
...US West Communications v. Taborski, 253 Neb. 770, 572 N.W.2d 81 (1998); Cunningham v. Leisure Inn, supra; Roth v. Sarpy Cty. Highway Dept., 253 Neb. 703, 572 N.W.2d 786 (1998); Thach v. Quality Pork International, An appellate court is obligated in workers' compensation cases to make its ow......
-
Holdsworth v. Cooperative
...v. O'Neill Packing, 262 Neb. 467, 632 N.W.2d 313 (2001). 14. See Moyera v. Quality Pork Internat., 284 Neb. 963, 825 N.W.2d 409 (2013). 15.Roth v. Sarpy Cty. Highway Dept., 253 Neb. 703, 572 N.W.2d 786 (1998). 16.Id. 17.Hollandsworth v. Nebraska Partners, 260 Neb. 756, 619 N.W.2d 579 (2000)......