Anderson v. EMCOR Group, 298 Neb. 174

Charles Anderson, a former EMCOR millwright, injured his right upper extremity and sought workers’ compensation; after MMI the court awarded a vocational rehabilitation evaluation and unspecified vocational rehabilitation services.
Parties agreed on vocational counselor Lisa Porter, who proposed a 2‑year associate’s degree in agriculture/horticulture at Southeast Community College to train Anderson for supervisory/manager roles in horticulture, projecting ~$13.20/hour post‑training.
The compensation court’s vocational rehabilitation specialist denied the plan, finding Porter’s labor‑market support insufficient and noting Anderson already performed gardening work and earned modest income from it.
EMCOR petitioned to modify/terminate vocational rehabilitation, arguing Anderson’s current gardening and sales and his acceptance of lower wages made retraining unnecessary; Anderson moved to approve the plan, testifying he needed prior employment to fund a greenhouse and that local jobs were limited.
The compensation court denied EMCOR’s petition and approved Porter’s plan, finding Anderson’s current earnings (~$8,000/year) were not suitable employment and that the plan could restore him to suitable employment despite obstacles.

Issue	Anderson’s Argument	EMCOR’s Argument	Held
Whether proposed formal retraining is reasonably necessary to restore to suitable employment	Plan is needed to put Anderson into suitable, gainful employment in horticulture/management; current gardening income is insufficient	Anderson’s existing gardening/sales and willingness to earn lower wages make formal retraining unnecessary	Court affirmed: plan reasonably necessary and may lead to suitable employment

Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415 (2015) (standards on appellate review in workers’ compensation cases)
Interiano‑Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (2016) (statutory interpretation is a question of law on appeal)
Stacy v. Great Lakes Agri Mktg., 276 Neb. 236 (2008) (vocational rehabilitation entitlement ordinarily a fact question for compensation court)
Yager v. Bellco Midwest, 236 Neb. 888 (1991) (adopted definitions of “restore,” “gainful employment,” and “suitable employment”)
Becerra v. United Parcel Service, 284 Neb. 414 (2012) (vocational rehabilitation framework under § 48‑162.01)
Tapia‑Reyes v. Excel Corp., 281 Neb. 15 (2011) (workers’ compensation statutes construed liberally)
Ex Parte Beaver Valley Corp., 477 So. 2d 408 (Ala. 1985) (definitional guidance on restore/gainful/suitable employment adopted by Nebraska)