Lewis v. MBC Constr. Co.
309 Neb. 726
| Neb. | 2021Background:
- Allen Lewis suffered an on-the-job injury that resulted in an above‑knee amputation of his left leg and now uses a wheelchair, scooter, and crutches.
- Lewis sought an employer-funded accessible home (estimated near $400,000) — a four‑bedroom, three‑car‑garage house — and medical testimony said a fully accessible home with main‑floor bathroom was needed.
- MBC (employer/insurer) refused to build or buy a home but offered to modify or secure rental housing; an affidavit identified numerous Omaha properties or rentals that could meet Lewis’s needs.
- The Workers’ Compensation Court rejected Lewis’s proposed new‑construction house as unreasonable but ordered MBC to find accessible living quarters within 45 days and listed 11 required accessibility features; the order also at points required MBC to build or purchase an accessible home.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court vacated and remanded because the compensation court’s order was ambiguous and failed to satisfy Workers’ Comp. Ct. R. of Proc. 11 (requiring explicit findings and a record enabling meaningful appellate review); the court did not resolve whether an employer may be compelled to purchase/build a home.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the compensation court could order the employer to purchase or build an accessible home | Lewis: employer can be required to provide an accessible home as a compensable medical appliance/supply under §48‑120 when required by injury | MBC: ordering purchase/build exceeds statutory authority; employer not required to buy/construct housing | The Supreme Court vacated the order as ambiguous under Rule 11 and remanded for clear findings; it declined to decide whether purchase/build authority exists |
| Whether Lewis’s proposed four‑bedroom, three‑garage new‑construction home was reasonable/necessary | Lewis: needs larger accessible home for himself and children; medical testimony supports full accessibility | MBC: proposed new construction unreasonable and unnecessary; alternatives and rentals available | The compensation court found Lewis’s proposal unreasonable; Supreme Court did not reach Lewis’s cross‑appeal on this issue due to vacatur/remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. E.M.C. Ins. Cos., 259 Neb. 433 (2000) (held home modifications can be compensable appliances/supplies when required by the injury and promote restoration)
- Koterzina v. Copple Chevrolet, 1 Neb. App. 1000 (1993) (court of appeals affirming compensability of home modification costs)
- Squeo v. Comfort Control Corp., 99 N.J. 588 (1985) (state supreme court recognizing employer liability for adaptive housing in appropriate circumstances)
- Owen v. American Hydraulics, 254 Neb. 685 (1998) (appellate remand where compensation court’s findings were ambiguous or contradictory)
- Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605 (2019) (remand for failure to comply with Rule 11 requiring explicit findings and legal basis for appellate review)