Frans v. Waldinger Corp.
306 Neb. 574
Neb.2020Background
- In 2002 Frans was struck on the head by a garage door at work; he initially reported head, neck, and back injuries.
- In 2008 Frans and Waldinger entered a settlement stipulating Frans injured his lower back in the 2002 accident and resolving all issues except entitlement to reasonable and necessary future medical treatment for the low-back condition; the court approved and dismissed the petition.
- Years later Frans sought reimbursement for continuing medical care, filing an amended petition alleging head, neck, low-back injuries and seeking treatment for depression allegedly arising from the low-back injury.
- At trial the compensation court awarded reimbursement for ongoing low-back treatments and physical therapy, found depression and anxiety were causally related to the low-back condition (and awarded treatment), but denied recovery for head and neck treatment.
- The Court of Appeals agreed the settlement did not bar depression/anxiety treatment if caused by the low back, reversed the award for depression/anxiety (finding insufficient proof of causation), but did not disturb the low-back award—yet its mandate directed dismissal of Frans’ amended petition in its entirety.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review to consider whether the Court of Appeals erred by directing dismissal of the entire amended petition, and modified the Court of Appeals’ mandate to direct dismissal only as to claims for depression and anxiety and head and neck injuries; it affirmed in all other respects.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Court of Appeals properly directed dismissal of Frans’ amended petition in its entirety on remand | Frans: Entire petition should not be dismissed because the Court of Appeals did not reverse the compensation court’s award for low-back treatment | Waldinger: The Court of Appeals’ opinion should be read to require dismissal only of claims for depression/anxiety and head and neck injuries | Modified: Court of Appeals’ mandate was inconsistent with its substance; amended petition must be dismissed only as to depression/anxiety and head and neck claims; other relief (low-back awards) stands |
| Whether a trial court may act outside the scope of an appellate mandate on remand | Frans: Remand should not jeopardize the compensation court’s award that the appellate court did not reverse | Waldinger: (implied) the mandate controls remand scope | Held: Trial court is bound by the specific instructions of the appellate mandate and lacks power to affect rights outside the remand; Court of Appeals’ broad dismissal language was modified to conform to its substantive ruling |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605 (2019) (appellate court must make its own determinations on questions of law in workers’ compensation cases)
- TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493 (2020) (trial court lacks power to affect rights outside the scope of an appellate remand and must follow specific instructions on remand)