Greenwood v. J.J. Hooligan's
297 Neb. 435
| Neb. | 2017Background
- Lori Greenwood was injured on January 14, 2012, while working for J.J. Hooligan’s and filed a workers’ compensation claim naming the employer and FirstComp Insurance Company.
- FirstComp moved to dismiss, asserting it had cancelled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment before the injury under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03.
- FirstComp submitted employee affidavits, an internal spreadsheet showing a November 3, 2011 notice date, a certified-mail tracking number, and proof that the court received notice and the policy was cancelled November 19, 2011.
- Greenwood argued FirstComp failed to prove the notice was actually mailed to the employer (no return receipt, no direct USPS deposit evidence, and no detailed proof of office mailing practice or how the electronic USPS system worked).
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had complied with § 48-144.03 and dismissed FirstComp; Greenwood appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding FirstComp did not present sufficient competent evidence that it sent the certified-mail notice to the employer and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FirstComp comply with § 48-144.03 by providing the required certified-mail notice of cancellation to the employer? | Greenwood: FirstComp failed to prove mailing—no return receipt, no direct USPS deposit proof, and no evidence of an office mailing practice; tracking number alone is insufficient. | FirstComp: Employee affidavits, internal records, a certified-mail tracking number, and notice to the compensation court establish compliance. | Court: Reversed dismissal. Tracking number and affidavits alone were insufficient; insurer failed to show it sent the certified-mail notice to the employer. |
| What proof suffices to show a notice was mailed under § 48-144.03? | Greenwood: Requires direct proof of mailing or admissible proof of a reliable office mailing practice; tracking number insufficient. | FirstComp: Electronic mailing system, tracking number, and internal records demonstrate mailing. | Court: Receipt by employer is not required, but insurer must prove it actually sent certified mail—either direct USPS deposit proof or a sufficiently detailed office practice describing how notices are produced and transmitted; unexplained tracking number/electronic-mail assertions were inadequate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (discusses standards for proof of mailing in compensation-related contexts)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (affidavit of mailing without proof of USPS deposit held insufficient)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (office-mail-chute testimony without evidence of USPS depository insufficient to establish mailing)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (appellate court need not address unnecessary issues)