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). She sued the employer and FirstComp Insurance seeking workers’ compensation benefits.
- FirstComp moved to dismiss, asserting it had lawfully canceled J.J. Hooligan’s workers’ compensation policy for nonpayment before Greenwood’s injury under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-144.03.
- FirstComp submitted employee affidavits, an internal spreadsheet showing a November 3, 2011 notice, a copy of the cancellation notice, and a certified-mail tracking number; the Workers’ Compensation Court accepted that evidence and dismissed FirstComp.
- Greenwood argued FirstComp failed to prove the notice was actually mailed to the employer (no return receipt, no direct USPS deposit proof, and insufficient proof of office mailing practices); she contended the tracking number alone was inadequate.
- The Supreme Court reviewed whether FirstComp met the statutory notice-by-certified-mail requirement and whether the evidence sufficed to support dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Greenwood's Argument | FirstComp's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether FirstComp proved it sent the employer the required certified-mail cancellation under § 48-144.03 | FirstComp offered no return receipt or direct USPS deposit evidence and no adequate proof of a regular office mailing practice; tracking number alone insufficient | Tracking number, employee affidavits, internal records, and notice to the court show the notice was sent | Reversed: evidence insufficient. Tracking number and the affidavits without details of mailing practice or proof of USPS deposit do not establish compliance |
| Whether the Workers’ Compensation Court properly dismissed FirstComp as a party | J.J. Hooligan’s carrier status not established so FirstComp remains a defendant | Policy canceled before the accident; dismissal appropriate | Reversed: dismissal was erroneous because cancellation was not proved |
Key Cases Cited
- Interiano-Lopez v. Tyson Fresh Meats, 294 Neb. 586 (addresses standards for proving mailing and related evidentiary issues)
- Houska v. City of Wahoo, 235 Neb. 635 (office-mail affidavit alone insufficient to prove mailing)
- Baker v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 240 Neb. 14 (mailing presumption requires proof of USPS depository or established collection practice)
- Estermann v. Bose, 296 Neb. 228 (appellate courts need not decide unnecessary ancillary issues)