Hintz v. Farmers Co-op Assn.
297 Neb. 903
| Neb. | 2017Background
- On Nov. 13, 2014, Ian T. Hintz, a Farmers Cooperative employee, was injured when a semitrailer tire exploded; he was thrown ~10 feet and had back, groin, and right leg symptoms but returned to work the following Monday and did not seek immediate medical care.
- Coworker testimony and payroll records indicated Hintz performed regular duties without notable limitation after the incident.
- On Dec. 4, 2014, Hintz tripped on home stairs, hit his right hip, then sought treatment; imaging showed a severe right hip labral tear, 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; Dr. James Gallentine said causation was uncertain between the two events; Dr. Dennis Bozarth (defense reviewer) concluded the workplace injury had resolved and the stair fall caused the symptomatic right hip injury.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court found Hintz’s work injury resolved within 3 days and denied benefits; the Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, but the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated the compensation court’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hintz) | Defendant's Argument (Farmers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hintz’s surgical right hip injury was caused by Nov. 13 workplace accident or by Dec. 4 stair fall | The Nov. 13 tire explosion caused ongoing hip symptoms culminating in surgery | The workplace injury resolved within days; the Dec. 4 fall caused the symptomatic right hip injury | The Workers’ Comp Court’s finding that the work injury resolved and the Dec. 4 fall caused the hip injury was supported by competent evidence and not clearly erroneous |
| Whether the compensation court improperly rejected surgeon Harris’s causation opinion as lacking foundation | Harris’s intraoperative observations support causation by the work event | Harris’s opinion is based on an inconsistent history and thus not credible | Trial court reasonably rejected Harris’s opinion as lacking credible foundation; appellate court erred by reweighing evidence |
| Competency of a records-review expert (Bozarth) | Hintz: records-only opinion insufficient to establish causation for defense | Farmers: a physician may base opinion on review of other practitioners’ tests/exams; such opinions are competent | Bozarth’s records-review opinion is competent medical evidence; admissibility acceptable and weight for trier of fact to decide |
| Standard of review for Workers’ Compensation Court factual findings | N/A (appellant contested outcome) | Appellate review must defer to compensation court and view evidence in light most favorable to successful party | Supreme Court: apply § 48-185 and clear-error standard; Court of Appeals improperly substituted its judgment for the compensation court |
Key Cases Cited
- Nichols v. Fairway Bldg. Prods., 294 Neb. 657 (standard of review for Workers’ Compensation Court decisions)
- Hull v. Aetna Ins. Co., 247 Neb. 713 (fact-findings by compensation court have force of jury verdict)
- Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 291 Neb. 757 (expert medical testimony required when injury not plainly apparent)
- Owen v. American Hydraulics, 258 Neb. 881 (appellate court will not substitute its judgment where record shows conflicting medical testimony)
- Hamer v. Henry, 215 Neb. 805 (trier of fact not bound by expert opinions)
- Mathes v. City of Omaha, 254 Neb. 269 (definition of competent evidence)
- Hohnstein v. W.C. Frank, 237 Neb. 974 (expert testimony necessary when subject matter is scientific)
- State v. Earl, 252 Neb. 127 (trial court initially determines competency of a witness)