Strasburg v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.
| Decision Date | 01 November 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. S–12–999.,S–12–999. |
| Parties | Shawn T. Strasburg, appellee, v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, a Delaware corporation, appellant. |
| Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Marlon A. Polk, Judge. Affirmed.
Gary J. Nedved and Joel Bacon, of Keating, O'Gara, Nedved & Peter, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
William Kvas, Richard J. Dinsmore, and Katie Figgins, for appellee.
1. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a question of law that an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.
2. Contracts: Compromise and Settlement: Appeal and Error. Allocation of a settlement agreement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
3. Torts: Damages. The collateral source rule provides that benefits received by the plaintiff from a source wholly independent of and collateral to the wrongdoer will not diminish the damages otherwise recoverable from the wrongdoer.
4. Torts: Damages: Tort-feasors: Liability. The theory underlying the collateral source rule is to prevent a tort-feasor from escaping liability because of the act of a third party, even if a possibility exists that the plaintiff may be compensated twice.
5. Torts: Damages: Insurance: Tort-feasors. Under the collateral source rule, the fact that the party seeking recovery has been wholly or partially indemnifiedfor a loss by insurance or otherwise cannot be set up by the wrongdoer in mitigation of damages. But if the tort-feasor contributed in some way to the benefits provided to the injured person, then the tort-feasor might be entitled to mitigation of damages.
6. Statutes: Appeal and Error. Absent anything to the contrary, an appellate court will give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning.
7. Federal Acts: Railroads: Employer and Employee: Liability: Compromise and Settlement. Under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), when an injured employee has alleged that both a FELA and a non-FELA defendant are responsible for the injury, the majority rule holds that a settlement with the non-FELA defendant results in a dollar-for-dollar offset in the judgment against the nonsettling FELA defendant.
8. Federal Acts: Railroads: Liability: Compromise and Settlement. There is no loss of consortium recovery in an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act, and any settlement reached on a loss of consortium claim is not subject to setoff against the defendant in such action.
9. Contracts: Compromise and Settlement: Proof. The burden to show that the allocation set forth in a settlement agreement was not reasonable lies with the party seeking credit against the settlement.
10. Judgments: Appeal and Error. As a general proposition, an appellate court does not require a district court to explain its reasoning. Only in certain situations is a court required to make findings of fact, typically by request, or as required by statute or court rule.
Shawn T. Strasburg filed an action under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA), 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq. (2006), against Union Pacific Railroad Company (Union Pacific). Strasburg alleged that he was injured in the course of his employment and that his injuries were caused by Union Pacific's negligence. A jury trial was held, and a verdict was entered for Strasburg in the amount of $1,032,375.43. Following trial, the district court allowed Union Pacific to set off the verdict in the amount of $425,000 because of a settlement reached with another defendant, and additionally enforced a medical lien in the amount of $139,845.03 against that settlement. Union Pacific appeals.
On March 12, 2009, Strasburg was employed as a carman for Union Pacific. On that day, he was attending a Union Pacific safety class taught by Union Pacific employees. That class was held at a community college in North Platte, Nebraska, in a classroom which was solely dedicated to the instruction of Union Pacific employees. Ironically, while Strasburg was attending this safety class, the chair upon which Strasburg was seated collapsed, causing injury to Strasburg's back which necessitated disk replacement surgery.
Strasburg filed a FELA action against Union Pacific and also filed suit against the manufacturer of the chair, Steelcase Inc. (Steelcase). In addition, Strasburg's wife, Robin Strasburg, filed suit against Steelcase, alleging loss of consortium. Strasburg and Robin settled their case against Steelcase for $725,000. Per the terms of the agreement, the settlement was allocated at $425,000 for Strasburg's claim and $300,000 for Robin's claim.
Prior to trial, Union Pacific filed for a medical lien against the Steelcase settlement in the amount of $135,151.01, the amount it had paid out on Strasburg's behalf as of that time. A hearing was held, but the district court declined to enforce the lien at that time, concluding that the lien rights should not be determined until after the conclusion of the FELA action.
A jury trial was held. The primary issue litigated at trial was of causation. There was no dispute at trial regarding the necessity or payment of Strasburg's medical bills. The trial court admitted exhibit 27, which was a list of Strasburg's medical and prescription expenses. That exhibit indicated that Strasburg had total medical expenses of $261,413.43 as billed by the providers. This exhibit was the only evidence presented at trial regarding medical expenses; Union Pacific and Strasburg stipulated to its admissibility. But in fact, Union Pacific had contracted with Strasburg's medical providers to pay a reduced rate on Strasburg's behalf, an amount reflected in the various medical liens Union Pacific filed against Strasburg.
The jury returned a general verdict for Strasburg in the amount of $1,032,375.43. Neither party requested a special verdict form.
Following the verdict, Union Pacific filed a motion for new trial and a renewed motion to enforce the medical lien against settlement proceeds. The latter motion requested a lien on the Steelcase settlement in the amount of $139,945.03, or the amount that had been paid out to date in medical benefits on Strasburg's behalf. Though not entirely clear from the record, it appears the difference in the lien amount sought prior to and after trial was due to other bills that had been paid by Union Pacific in the interim.
A hearing was held on these motions. Several issues were discussed at that hearing. One issue was the motion for new trial, which was later denied. Any issues relating to that denial have not been appealed.
Also at issue at the hearing was the lien for medical expenses and the appropriate amount of the medical expense setoff. Union Pacific alleged that it was entitled to a lien against the Steelcase settlement in the amount of $139,945.03 for medical expenses paid, and was also entitled to a setoff for the difference between the total amount of Strasburg's bills—$261,413.43—and the amount actually paid to settle those bills—$139,945.03—or $121,468.40. Explained simply, Union Pacific argues that it was entitled to a setoff of the entire amount of Strasburg's medical expenses—$261,413.43—and not just a setoff for the amount actually paid to settle those bills.
Finally, Union Pacific sought a setoff for the amount of the settlement with Steelcase that was attributable to Strasburg's claims. But Union Pacific alleged that the allocation reflected in the settlement agreement—$425,000 for Strasburg and $300,000 for Robin—should be modified to more accurately reflect the relative injury suffered by each.
The district court granted the motion to enforce the medical lien for the amount paid by Union Pacific, but denied Union Pacific's request to set off the remainder of the medical expenses as reflected in exhibit 27. The district court declined to modify the allocation of the Steelcase settlement, but allowed Union Pacific a setoff of $425,000 against the jury verdict for that settlement.
Union Pacific appeals.
Union Pacific assigns that the district court erred in (1) not allowing a setoff of the portion of Strasburg's medical bills that were written off by Strasburg's medical providers as a result of negotiations between Union Pacific and the providers and (2) not modifying the allocation of the Strasburgs' settlement with Steelcase and setting off that reallocated amount from the verdict.
Statutory interpretation is a question of law that an appellate court resolves independently of the trial court.1
Allocation of a settlement agreement is reviewed for an abuse of discretion.
On appeal, Union Pacific assigns that the district court erred in not permitting it to set off the portion of Strasburg's medical bills as reflected in exhibit 27 that were written off by Strasburg's medical providers as a result of negotiations between Union Pacific and the providers, an amount referred to herein as the “writeoff amount.” We note Strasburg's medical expenses were paid by Union Pacific Railroad Employes Health Systems, which is a third-party administrator for Union Pacific's health plan. Any rights Union Pacific Railroad Employes Health Systems might have against Strasburg have been assigned to Union Pacific, and accordingly, we refer to Union Pacific Railroad Employes Health Systems as “Union Pacific” for ease of comprehension.
There is no dispute that Union Pacific is entitled to a lien for the amount actually paid; such a lien was requested by Union...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pierce v. Landmark Mgmt. Grp., Inc.
...237, 872 N.W.2d 37 (2015).39 See, id. ; Martensen v. Rejda Bros., 283 Neb. 279, 808 N.W.2d 855 (2012).40 Strasburg v. Union Pacific RR. Co ., 286 Neb. 743, 839 N.W.2d 273 (2013).41 Brief for appellants at 30.42 Airport Inn v. Nebraska Equal Opp. Comm., 217 Neb. 852, 353 N.W.2d 727 (1984).43......
-
De Vries v. L & L Custom Builders, Inc.
...of Omaha , 284 Neb. 131, 816 N.W.2d 742 (2012).20 Roth v. Wiese , 271 Neb. 750, 716 N.W.2d 419 (2006).21 Strasburg v. Union Pacific R. Co. , 286 Neb. 743, 839 N.W.2d 273 (2013).22 See, McCaulley v. C L Enters. , 309 Neb. 141, 959 N.W.2d 225 (2021) ; Murphy v. Spelts-Schultz Lumber Co. , 240......
-
Jacobs Eng'g Grp. Inc. v. Conagra Foods, Inc., S-16-896
...N.W.2d 82 (2014) ; Buckeye State Mut. Ins. Co. v. Humlicek , 284 Neb. 463, 822 N.W.2d 351 (2012).44 Id.45 Strasburg v. Union Pacific RR. Co. , 286 Neb. 743, 839 N.W.2d 273 (2013).46 Id.47 See Midland Mut. Life Ins. v. Mercy Clinics , 579 N.W.2d 823 (Iowa 1998) (citing cases).48 See John Mun......
-
Ill. Cent. R.R. Co. v. Oakes
...July 27, 2010) ; Krueger v. Soo Line R.R. , No. 02–C–0611, 2005 WL 2234610 (E.D. Wisc. Sept. 12, 2005) ; Strasburg v. Union Pac. R.R. , 286 Neb. 743, 839 N.W.2d 273 (2013) ; Hess v. Norfolk S. Ry. , 106 Ohio St.3d 389, 835 N.E.2d 679 (2005) ; Seaford v. Norfolk S. Ry. , 106 Ohio St.3d 430, ......