831 N.W.2d 709
Neb. Ct. App.2013Background
- Cervantes appeals a Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court award (Feb. 22, 2012) denying permanent and total disability and limiting vocational rehabilitation benefits.
- The court rejected the parties’ stipulation that Cervantes sustained bilateral shoulder injuries from the Aug. 14, 2006 incident.
- The court found Cervantes was not permanently and totally disabled and limited vocational rehabilitation to June 8, 2008–July 21, 2011.
- The court remanded to determine disability under § 48-121(3) in light of the disputed stipulation.
- The appellate court reverses and remands for further proceedings to resolve the disability question with the stipulation and existing record.
- This opinion addresses the enforceability of stipulations and the proper disposition of disability and rehabilitation issues under the stipulated facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of stipulations on bilateral shoulder injuries | Cervantes: stipulations should be enforced | Omaha Steel: court may reject stipulations under certain circumstances | Stipulations should be enforced; remand for disability determination |
| Whether Cervantes is permanently and totally disabled under § 48-121(3) | Cervantes entitled to disability if injuries arise from a single accident | Disability depends on trial evidence; stipulation disputed | Remand to resolve disability in light of stipulation and record |
| Scope of vocational rehabilitation entitlement | Cervantes should receive rehabilitation; duration as stipulated | Rehabilitation timeframe limited by order | Entitlement to rehabilitation from June 8, 2008 to July 21, 2011 affirmed; remand not necessary beyond |
Key Cases Cited
- Shipler v. General Motors Corp., 271 Neb. 194 (2006) (courts enforce valid stipulations unless good cause shown; status quo preserved)
- In re Estate of Mithofer, 243 Neb. 722 (1993) (stipulations binding; relief from them exceptional)
- Fordham v. West Lumber Co., 2 Neb. App. 716 (1994) (courts may decline to enforce stipulations in the interests of justice)
- City of Ashland v. Ashland Salvage, 271 Neb. 362 (2006) (judicial admissions must be unequivocal and deliberate)
- U.S. West Communications v. Taborski, 253 Neb. 770 (1998) (context governs interpretation of admissions in pleadings)
- Robison v. Madsen, 246 Neb. 22 (1994) (admissions do not extend beyond their clear intendment)
- Kuhlmann v. Platte Valley Irr. Dist., 166 Neb. 493 (1958) (stipulations cannot be contradicted by contrary evidence)