Hintz v. Farmers Co-op Assn.
902 N.W.2d 131
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 13, 2014, Ian Hintz was injured at work when a semitrailer tire exploded; he was thrown ~10 feet, landed on his back, had transient leg numbness and groin/hip pain, and returned to work the following Monday.
- Hintz did not seek immediate medical care after the workplace incident; coworkers and payroll records indicated he performed normal duties in the ensuing weeks.
- On Dec. 4, 2014, Hintz tripped on stairs at home, struck his right hip, then sought treatment; MRI showed a significant right labral tear and he underwent right hip arthroscopy and labral repair in Feb. 2015.
- Treating surgeon Dr. Harris later opined the labral tear more likely resulted from a high-energy work injury; Farmers’ reviewing expert Dr. Bozarth concluded the work injury resolved and the Dec. fall caused the symptomatic right hip injury; another treating physician (Gallentine) said causation was uncertain and deferred to Harris.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found Hintz’s work injury resolved within 3 days and denied benefits for the later hip injury; the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding competent medical causation evidence for Hintz.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals, holding there was sufficient competent evidence to support the compensation court’s findings and affirming that credibility and weight of conflicting medical opinions are for the trier of fact.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hintz) | Defendant's Argument (Farmers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Nov. 13 work event proximately caused the later symptomatic hip injury and disability | The work explosion produced a severe labral tear that continued to cause symptoms and required surgery | Any work injury resolved within days; the Dec. fall produced the symptomatic right hip injury | Workers’ Compensation Court finding that the work injury resolved and the Dec. fall caused the symptomatic injury is supported by competent evidence and affirmed |
| Whether the treating surgeon’s opinion (Harris) is competent and must be credited despite inconsistent histories | Harris’s surgical observations provide competent, direct medical causation opinion tying injury to work event | Harris’s opinion relied on an inconsistent patient history and thus lacked a credible foundation | Court may reject an expert opinion based on factual foundation; compensation court properly discounted Harris’s opinion |
| Whether a reviewing physician’s opinion based on records review (Bozarth) is competent medical evidence | Hintz argued Bozarth’s records-based opinion was not competent | Farmers argued records-review opinion is admissible and may be credited | Records-based medical opinions are competent; weight and credibility are for the trier of fact |
| Standard of appellate review—did Court of Appeals reweigh evidence and improperly substitute its judgment | Hintz urged reversal/remand in his favor | Farmers argued the Court of Appeals failed to view evidence in light most favorable to the successful party and substituted its judgment | Supreme Court held Court of Appeals erred by reweighing conflicting evidence and reversed its decision |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Fairway Bldg. Prods., 294 Neb. 657 (appellate review standard for Workers’ Compensation Court)
- Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 291 Neb. 757 (expert medical testimony required when injury not plainly apparent)
- Owen v. American Hydraulics, 258 Neb. 881 (trier of fact need not accept expert opinion as binding)
- Hohnstein v. W.C. Frank, 237 Neb. 974 (expert testimony on scientific matters)
- Mathes v. City of Omaha, 254 Neb. 269 (definition of competent evidence)
- Hull v. Aetna Ins. Co., 247 Neb. 713 (burden to prove causation by preponderance)