Hintz v. Farmers Co-op Assn., 297 Neb. 903

On Nov. 13, 2014, Ian Hintz, a tire technician for Farmers Cooperative Association, was thrown ~10 feet when a semitrailer tire exploded at work; he had immediate back, groin, hip pain and limited use of his right leg but returned to work the following Monday.
Hintz did not seek immediate medical care after the work incident; coworkers and payroll records indicated he performed normal duties thereafter.
On Dec. 4, 2014, Hintz tripped on home stairs, injured his right hip, and sought treatment; MRI showed a severe superior labral tear and paralabral irregularity, and Dr. Justin Harris performed arthroscopic repair on Feb. 25, 2015.
Medical opinions conflicted: Harris (surgeon) believed the labral tear was more consistent with a high-energy work injury; Drs. Gallentine and Bozarth said causation was uncertain, with Bozarth concluding the home fall more likely caused the symptomatic right-hip condition and that any work injury had resolved.
The Workers’ Compensation Court found Hintz’s work injury had resolved within 3 days and denied benefits; the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for reconsideration of causation, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the compensation court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Hintz)	Defendant's Argument (Farmers)	Held
Whether Hintz’s post‑surgery hip condition was causally related to the Nov. 13 work accident	The labral tear and ongoing symptoms stem from the tire explosion at work	The work injury resolved within days; the Dec. 4 stair fall caused the symptomatic right‑hip injury	The compensation court’s finding that the work injury resolved and the home fall caused the symptomatic injury is supported by competent evidence and is not clearly erroneous
Whether the compensation court erred in rejecting surgeon Harris’s opinion as lacking foundation	Harris observed intra‑articular pathology during surgery and linked it to the work event	Harris’s opinion rested on an inconsistent history; the court could credit other evidence and experts	Trial court properly weighed credibility; appellate court erred by reweighing evidence
Whether a record‑reviewing expert (Bozarth) provided competent medical testimony	N/A (Bozarth supported Farmers’ position)	Bozarth’s file‑review opinion is competent even without performing exams	Bozarth’s opinion was competent; physicians may rely on other practitioners’ exams for diagnosis
Whether the Court of Appeals misapplied standard of review and liberal construction of the Act	N/A	Court of Appeals substituted its judgment for trial court and misapplied standards	Court of Appeals reversed; Supreme Court reinstated trial court’s factual findings and remanded with directions to affirm

Nichols v. Fairway Bldg. Prods., 294 Neb. 657 (standard for reviewing Workers’ Compensation Court decisions)
Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 291 Neb. 757 (expert testimony required when injury’s nature/effect not plainly apparent)
Owen v. American Hydraulics, 258 Neb. 881 (trier of fact may credit or reject expert opinions)
Hamer v. Henry, 215 Neb. 805 (role of trier of fact regarding expert testimony)
Mathes v. City of Omaha, 254 Neb. 269 (definition and scope of competent evidence)
Hohnstein v. W.C. Frank, 237 Neb. 974 (when expert knowledge is essential for causation opinions)
Hull v. Aetna Ins. Co., 247 Neb. 713 (burden of proof under Workers’ Compensation Act)
State v. Earl, 252 Neb. 127 (trial court’s initial determination of witness competency)