Boring v. Zoetis LLC
309 Neb. 270
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Boring filed a WCC petition alleging a work-related right-shoulder injury on February 7, 2017, and sought compensation, medical expenses, waiting-time penalties, interest, and attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-125.
- Zoetis’ answer admitted the paragraph alleging a February 7, 2017 work accident, but denied allegations about the extent of compensation and denied that no reasonable controversy existed.
- At trial the parties submitted a stipulation that an award would be entered “should the [WCC] find [Boring] suffered a compensable accident and injury,” and the case was tried primarily on causation and the nature/extent of injury; competing medical opinions were presented.
- The WCC found a compensable shoulder injury, awarded benefits, and—relying on Zoetis’ admission in its answer—awarded waiting-time penalties and attorney fees under § 48-125.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the benefits awards but vacated the penalties and fees, concluding that a reasonable controversy existed regarding causation and extent of injury.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals: the WCC erred by basing its no-reasonable-controversy finding solely on a judicial admission that had been effectively relieved by trial stipulation and the way the case was tried; the record, disregarding the admission, permits only the conclusion that a reasonable controversy existed, so penalties and fees were improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Boring) | Defendant's Argument (Zoetis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Does Zoetis’ admission in its answer eliminate a "reasonable controversy" under § 48-125 so as to allow penalties and attorney fees? | Admission in answer (per Heesch) constituted a binding judicial admission of compensability, so no reasonable controversy existed. | The parties tried compensability at trial (stipulation); the admission was effectively relieved/implicit amendment occurred; compensability remained contested. | WCC erred to rely solely on the admission; because the issue was tried, the court should have assessed the trial evidence. |
| 2. Was there a reasonable controversy as to compensability, causation, or extent of injury? | Boring: admission made basic compensability indisputable, supporting penalties/fees. | Zoetis: substantial, conflicting medical evidence and trial focus on causation created a reasonable controversy preventing penalties/fees. | As a matter of law (on this record, disregarding admissions), only one reasonable conclusion exists: a reasonable controversy existed; penalties and fees reversed. |
| 3. Scope of § 48-125 relief (waiting-time penalty vs attorney fees) under facts involving medical expenses and indemnity claims? | Boring sought penalties and fees for medical and indemnity nonpayment. | Zoetis contended waiting-time penalty applies only to compensation (not medical); attorney fees can cover medical only if no reasonable controversy. | Court reiterated waiting-time penalty applies to delinquent compensation (not medical); attorney fees may extend to medical payments, but both require no reasonable controversy. |
Key Cases Cited
- Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292 (2020) (articulates "reasonable controversy" test for § 48-125 awards)
- Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311 (2018) (employer must promptly pay undisputed compensation; only genuine medical or legal doubt excuses delay)
- Risor v. Nebraska Boiler, 277 Neb. 679 (2009) (WCC not bound by formal pleading rules; pleadings can be implicitly amended by evidence tried by consent)
- Heesch v. Swimtastic Swim School, 20 Neb. App. 260 (2012) (court of appeals decision recognizing judicial admission may negate reasonable controversy)
- Saberzadeh v. Shaw, 266 Neb. 196 (2003) (judicial admission ordinarily final and limits issues unless opposing party invokes it at trial)
- VanKirk v. Central Community College, 285 Neb. 231 (2013) (waiting-time penalty applies to compensation, not medical expenses)