Hintz v. Farmers Co-op Assn.
297 Neb. 903
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 13, 2014, Hintz, a tire technician employed by Farmers, was thrown ~10 feet when a semitrailer tire exploded; he reported immediate back, groin, hip pain and temporary leg numbness but did not seek medical care for several weeks and returned to work.
- On Dec. 4, 2014, Hintz tripped on home stairs and thereafter sought treatment for right hip pain; MRI showed a labral tear and he underwent arthroscopic repair on Feb. 25, 2015.
- Treating surgeon Dr. Harris later opined the labral tear was more consistent with a high‑energy workplace injury; another treating physician (Gallentine) said causation was uncertain and deferred to Harris; Farmers’ review expert (Dr. Bozarth) opined the work injury had resolved and the Dec. fall caused the symptomatic right hip.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found the workplace injury resolved within 3 days and denied benefits for the hip surgery, crediting evidence that Hintz returned to full duty and that his post‑Dec. complaints were related to the stair fall.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, concluding the trial court erred in rejecting Harris’ causation opinion and that Bozarth’s record‑review opinion was not competent medical testimony.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review, reversed the Court of Appeals, and affirmed the Workers’ Compensation Court’s factual findings and credibility determinations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hintz) | Defendant's Argument (Farmers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation: Did Nov. 13 workplace accident proximately cause the hip injury requiring surgery? | The workplace tire explosion initiated symptoms and caused the labral tear; Harris’s surgical observations support workplace causation. | The work injury resolved within days; the Dec. 4 stair fall caused the symptomatic right hip requiring surgery. | Court upheld trial court: insufficient proof workplace event caused the later symptomatic hip; findings not clearly erroneous. |
| Expert competence: Is Bozarth’s record‑review opinion competent medical evidence? | (arg implicitly) Bozarth’s opinion is weak because based on records review. | Bozarth’s opinion is competent; physicians may rely on others’ exams/records to form opinions. | Court held Bozarth’s opinion was competent; trial court properly weighed competing expert opinions. |
| Weight/credibility of expert testimony: May the trier of fact reject Harris for inconsistent history? | Harris’s intraoperative observations make his causation opinion persuasive despite history inconsistencies. | Trial court validly rejected Harris because his opinion relied on an inconsistent patient history and was not credible. | Court affirmed trial court’s credibility determination; resolving conflicts among experts is for the trier of fact. |
| Appellate review: Did Court of Appeals improperly reweigh evidence and misapply standards? | (Court of Appeals) Trial court erred in rejecting Harris and in failing to reconsider under liberal construction. | Farmers: Appellate court failed to view evidence in light most favorable to successful party and substituted its judgment. | Supreme Court held Court of Appeals misapplied standard of review and improperly reweighed evidence; reversed and directed affirmance. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Fairway Bldg. Prods., 294 Neb. 657 (appellate standard and deference to Workers’ Compensation Court)
- Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 291 Neb. 757 (physician reliance on others’ exams for diagnosis)
- Hull v. Aetna Ins. Co., 247 Neb. 713 (plaintiff’s burden to prove causation in compensation cases)
- Owen v. American Hydraulics, 258 Neb. 881 (conflicting medical testimony — appellate court will not substitute its judgment)
- Mathes v. City of Omaha, 254 Neb. 269 (definition of competent evidence)
- Hohnstein v. W.C. Frank, 237 Neb. 974 (when expert testimony is required where subject is beyond lay experience)
- State v. Earl, 252 Neb. 127 (trial court’s initial determination of witness competency)