United Laboratories, Inc. v. Sorensen, 84-725

• Decision Date: 05 July 1985
• Docket Number: No. 84-725,84-725
• Citation: 369 N.W.2d 647,220 Neb. 412
• Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
• Parties: UNITED LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Appellant, v. Ronald E. SORENSEN, Commissioner of Labor, and James P. Breeden, Appellees.

Page 647

369 N.W.2d 647

220 Neb. 412

UNITED LABORATORIES, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Appellant, v. Ronald E. SORENSEN, Commissioner of Labor, and James P. Breeden, Appellees.

No. 84-725.

Supreme Court of Nebraska.

July 5, 1985.

Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: Jerry M. Gitnick, judge.

John D. Hartigan, Jr., of Kennedy, Holland, DeLacy & Svoboda, Omaha, and Paul G. Simon and Dennis Pence of Keck, Mahin & Cate, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.

Jerry D. Slominski, Lincoln, for appellee Sorensen.

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

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal in a contribution case from a determination made by the Nebraska Department of Labor, finding that James P. Breeden was an employee of the appellant, United Laboratories, Inc., and not an independent contractor, and therefore appellant was liable for contributions to the state Unemployment Compensation Fund. United Laboratories appealed the decision of the Department of Labor to the district court for Douglas County, Nebraska, which thereafter dismissed the appeal on the basis that the appeal should have been filed in the district court for Lancaster County, Nebraska, pursuant to Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-650 (Reissue 1984). It is from that order of dismissal that United Laboratories now appeals. The decision in this case is controlled by our earlier decisions in Whitehouse Energy Savers v. Hanlon, 214 Neb. 572, 334 N.W.2d 802 (1983), Northern Messenger v. Sorensen, 218 Neb. 846, 359 N.W.2d 787 (1984), and State v. Saville, 219 Neb. 81, 361 N.W.2d 215 (1985). The decision of the district court in dismissing the appeal is affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

GRANT, Justice, concurring.

I agree with the opinion of the majority, but my concurrence is based on my conclusions as to certain actions of the Commissioner of Labor. In my judgment the commissioner's action in, in effect, appointing the Nebraska Appeal Tribunal to hold the hearing required by Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-650 (Reissue 1984) and to render the commissioner's order on redetermination as required by that statute has created additional confusion in an already confusing area of the law.

Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-633 (Reissue 1984) establishes "impartial appeal tribunals" which are to "hear and decide disputed claims." Claims are defined in Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-629 (Reissue 1984) as "claims for benefits." Benefits are the subject of Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 48-623 through 48-647 (Reissue 1984). In Whitehouse Energy Savers v. Hanlon, 214 Neb. 572, 334 N.W.2d 802 (1983), we stated that appeals in connection with claims for benefits are to be taken to the district court of the county of the claimant's last employment or residence, or any district court upon which the parties agree. See § 48-638.

There appears to be little problem with that side of the procedure. The problems arise in the cases involving contribution liability. Appeals involving the contribution liability of the employer are taken to the district court for Lancaster County, under § 48-650. It is clear from a reading of that section that the appeal is not from an "appeal tribunal," however, but, rather, the appeal is from the commissioner's "denial of his [the employer's] application" or the commissioner's redetermination. In this case the appeal tribunal was performing...