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 (formerly Pies & Pints) and sought workers’ compensation benefits.
- Greenwood sued her employer and FirstComp Insurance Company after being told FirstComp was not the carrier on the accident date due to nonpayment.
- FirstComp moved to dismiss, asserting it had canceled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment and had mailed a certified notice of cancellation in November 2011 under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03.
- FirstComp submitted employee affidavits, an internal spreadsheet showing a November 3, 2011 entry, a certified-mail tracking number, and notice filed with the Workers’ Compensation Court; it did not submit a signed return receipt or direct proof of deposit with USPS.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found FirstComp had complied with the statute and dismissed FirstComp; Greenwood appealed.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed, holding FirstComp failed to present sufficient evidence that it mailed the certified cancellation notice to the employer as required.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Greenwood) | Defendant's Argument (FirstComp) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did FirstComp prove compliance with § 48-144.03 that cancellation notices must be mailed to employer by certified mail? | FirstComp produced no return receipt or direct proof of mailing; tracking number alone is insufficient. | Tracking number, employee affidavits, internal records, and filing with the court show the notice was sent. | Held for Greenwood: evidence insufficient to prove notice was mailed; dismissal reversed. |
| Must a notice sent by certified mail be actually received by the employer? | (Greenwood) Emphasizes lack of receipt as probative of nonmailing. | (FirstComp) Argues statutory requirement is satisfied by proof of mailing, not receipt. | Held: statute deems notice "given upon mailing"; receipt not required—insurer must still prove it mailed. |
| Is a certified-mail tracking number alone proof the insurer mailed the notice? | No—tracking number by itself does not establish certified-mail service. | Yes—tracking number indicates the USPS generated a certified-mail record. | Held: Tracking number alone insufficient without proof of deposit or showing of office mailing practice. |
| Can an insurer prove mailing via testimony about an electronic mailing system or office practice? | Argues FirstComp failed to describe its electronic mailing process or show consistent office practice. | Claims its electronic USPS system and employee affidavits demonstrate routine mailing. | Held: Insurer must present detailed evidence about the electronic system or established office practice (or direct USPS deposit proof); FirstComp failed to do so. |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (discusses certified-mail proof requirements)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (affidavit of mailing to internal mail chute insufficient to prove mailing)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (office-mailroom testimony insufficient to invoke receipt-of-mail presumption)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (appellate courts need not address unnecessary issues)