Snyder v. IBP, Inc., 87-682

• Decision Date: 15 July 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-682,87-682
• Citation: 229 Neb. 224,426 N.W.2d 261
• Parties: David J. SNYDER, Appellant, v. IBP, INC., Appellee.
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court

Page 261

426 N.W.2d 261

229 Neb. 224

David J. SNYDER, Appellant, v. IBP, INC., Appellee.

No. 87-682.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

July 15, 1988.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection. The function of the equal protection clause of U.S. Const. amend. XIV is to measure the validity of classifications created by state laws.

2. Constitutional Law: Equal Protection. Equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, but it does require that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made.

3. Constitutional Law: Legislature: Statutes. Although the power of classification rests with the Legislature, a statute which makes an artificial and baseless classification violates Neb. Const. art. III, § 18.

4. Constitutional Law: Legislature: Statutes. The Legislature may make a reasonable classification of persons, corporations, and property for the purpose of legislation concerning them, but the classification must rest upon real differences of situations and circumstances surrounding the members of the class relative to the subject of the legislation which render appropriate its enactment.

5. Constitutional Law: Statutes: Public Policy. To be valid, a classification must rest on some reason of public policy, some substantial difference of situation or circumstance that would naturally suggest the justice or expediency of diverse legislation with respect to the objects to be classified.

6. Constitutional Law: Statutes. A legislative classification must operate uniformly on all within a class which is reasonable. Exemptions may be allowed where they are made applicable to all persons of the same class similarly situated.

7. Constitutional Law: Statutes. Where the valid portions of an act can be enforced independently and the invalid portion did not constitute an inducement to passage of the act as a whole, the invalid portion is severable.

8. Workers' Compensation. The provisions in Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 48-140 and 48-141 (Reissue 1984) which bar proceedings to modify an award of compensation payable periodically over a period of less than 6 months are invalid as an unreasonable classification.

Paul W. Deck, of Deck & Deck, Sioux City, Iowa, for appellant.

Wayne E. Boyd, of Smith & Boyd, South Sioux City, for appellee.

HASTINGS, C.J., and BOSLAUGH, WHITE, CAPORALE, SHANAHAN, GRANT, and FAHRNBRUCH, JJ.

BOSLAUGH, Justice.

This is an appeal in a proceeding under the Workers' Compensation Act.

The plaintiff, David J. Snyder, injured his right shoulder on December 27, 1983, as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of his employment by the defendant, IBP, Inc. The plaintiff recovered an award for compensation for temporary total disability for 22 weeks, which was affirmed by this court in Snyder v. IBP, Inc., 222 Neb. 534, 385 N.W.2d 424 (1986). In that proceeding the compensation court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that he had sustained any disability after June 10, 1984.

On June 26, 1986, the plaintiff filed a petition in the compensation court seeking a modification of the previous award. The petition alleged there had been an increase in the incapacity of the plaintiff due solely to the injury of December 27, 1983, and that the plaintiff now has an anterior subluxation of the shoulder and a degenerative change in the cartilaginous surface of the glenoid and contiguous humeral head, resulting in total disability. The petition further alleged that the plaintiff will require surgery and additional medical services. The defendant's answer alleged that the increase in disability, if any, was not due solely to the injury of December 27, 1983, and that under Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 48-140 and 48-141 (Reissue 1984), the award was not subject to modification.

After a hearing before a single judge, the compensation court found that the award was not subject to modification. At the rehearing before a three-judge panel, an expert witness for the plaintiff testified by deposition that the plaintiff now has a 25-percent disability of his right upper extremity as a result of the injury to his shoulder on December 27, 1983. The compensation court, however, again found that the award was not subject to modification and dismissed the petition. The plaintiff has appealed.

In this court the plaintiff contends that the compensation court erred in finding that the award was not subject to modification and that §§ 48-140 and 48-141 were not unconstitutional.

Sections 48-140 and 48-141 provide in relevant part as follows:

All settlements by agreement of the parties with the approval of the compensation court and all awards of compensation made by the court, except those amounts payable periodically for six months or more, shall be final and not subject to readjustment....

(Emphasis supplied.) § 48-140.

All amounts paid by an employer or by an insurance company carrying such risk, as the case may be, and received by the employee or his dependents, by lump-sum payments, shall be final, but the amount of any agreement or award payable periodically for six months or more may be modified as follows....

(Emphasis supplied.) § 48-141.

By providing that only awards of compensation which are payable periodically for 6 months or more are subject to modification, the statutes divide awards into two classes. Awards which are payable over a period of less than 6 months are not subject to modification.

The plaintiff contends that the classification made by the statutes is invalid because it is arbitrary and unreasonable and lacking in any rational basis. The plaintiff argues that the classification violates both U.S. Const. amend. XIV and Neb. Const. art. III, § 18.

The function of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is to measure the validity of classifications created by state laws. Parker v. Roth, 202 Neb. 850, 278 N.W.2d 106 (1979). Equal protection does not require that all persons be dealt with identically, but it does require that the distinction have some relevance to the purpose for which the classification is made. Parker v. Roth, supra.

The issue is whether the distinction is "founded upon a reasonable distinction, or difference in state policy, or if any state of facts can reasonably be conceived which would sustain the classification." Farm Bureau Life Ins. Co. v. Luebbe, 218 Neb. 694, 700-01, 358 N.W.2d 754, 759 (1984).

Although the power of classification rests with the Legislature, a statute which makes an artificial and baseless classification violates Neb. Const. art. III, § 18. State ex rel. Douglas v. Nebraska Mortgage Finance Fund, 204 Neb. 445, 283 N.W.2d 12 (1979). The Legislature may make a reasonable classification of persons, corporations, and property for the purpose of legislation concerning them, but the classification must rest upon real differences of situations and circumstances surrounding the members of the class relative to the subject of the legislation which render appropriate its enactment. Prendergast v. Nelson, 199 Neb. 97, 256 N.W.2d 657 (1977). To be valid, a classification must rest on some reason of public policy, some substantial difference of situation or circumstance that would naturally suggest the justice or expediency of diverse legislation with respect to the objects to be classified. A legislative classification must operate uniformly on all within a class which is reasonable. Exemptions may be allowed where they are made applicable to all persons of the same class similarly situated. Casey's Gen. Stores v. Nebraska Liq. Cont. Comm., 220 Neb. 242, 369 N.W.2d 85 (1985).

We are unable to discern any reasonable basis for denying injured workers the right to a modification of an award of compensation merely because the award is payable...