Lewis v. MBC Constr. Co.
309 Neb. 726
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Worker Allen Lewis suffered an on-the-job injury (leg crushed) leading to above-knee amputation and wheelchair/scooter use.
- Treating providers recommended a fully wheelchair-accessible home (main-floor bathroom, wider doors, etc.) to relieve pain and aid restoration.
- Lewis sought an employer-funded new accessible house (four bedrooms, three-car garage); estimate ≈ $400,000.
- Employer/insurer (MBC) refused to buy/build a house but offered to modify or lease existing accessible housing; affidavit identified many rental/sale alternatives.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court ordered MBC to either modify an existing home or “build or purchase” an accessible home and listed 11 required accessibility features, but its order was internally ambiguous about which options and the employer’s economic obligations.
- Nebraska Supreme Court vacated and remanded because the compensation court’s order failed Rule 11’s requirement for clear findings and a record adequate for appellate review; the court did not resolve whether an employer may be forced to buy/build housing under § 48-120.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the compensation court could require employer to purchase or build an accessible home | Lewis: employer potentially liable to provide accessible housing as a medical appliance/supply under §48-120(1)(a) | MBC: directing purchase/build of real property exceeds the statutory authority under §48-120 | The Supreme Court found the WC court’s order ambiguous on this point, vacated and remanded for clearer findings; it declined to decide the substantive question on purchase/build authority. |
| Whether Lewis’s proposed new-construction four-bedroom house was reasonable/necessary | Lewis: needed for family and accessibility; difficult to find existing suitable units | MBC: proposed house is unreasonable, unnecessary, and costly; rental/modified options exist | The WC court originally found new-construction proposal unreasonable; the Supreme Court did not reach Lewis’s cross-appeal on that finding because it remanded the ambiguous primary order. |
| Whether the WC court’s order complied with Rule 11 and specified MBC’s economic obligations | Lewis: sought clear relief (home with specified accessibility features) | MBC: alternatives and cost allocation were unclear; court failed to specify obligations (costs, taxes, insurance, rent/mortgage) | Court held the order was ambiguous and contradictory and vacated it; remanded with directions to enter a Rule 11-compliant order identifying the order of alternatives to pursue and MBC’s specific economic obligations. |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. E.M.C. Ins. Cos., 259 Neb. 433, 610 N.W.2d 398 (Neb. 2000) (held home modifications can be compensable as "appliances" or "supplies" when required by the injury and promote restoration)
- Koterzina v. Copple Chevrolet, 1 Neb. App. 1000, 510 N.W.2d 467 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993) (affirming compensation for home modification costs for a wheelchair user)
- Owen v. American Hydraulics, 254 Neb. 685, 578 N.W.2d 57 (Neb. 1998) (reversal/remand where WC order was ambiguous and precluded meaningful appellate review)
- Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (Neb. 2003) (similar principle—ambiguous WC findings require vacatur/remand)
- Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605, 935 N.W.2d 754 (Neb. 2019) (vacatur/remand for failure to comply with Rule 11 clarity requirements)