Loyd v. Family Dollar Stores of Neb., 304 Neb. 883

Cheryl Loyd filed a workers’ compensation claim for a work-related hernia; Family Dollar later agreed to a lump-sum settlement ($150,000) plus an interest-bearing medical account.
Because Loyd is a Medicare beneficiary, the lump-sum settlement required approval by the Workers’ Compensation Court under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-139.
The compensation court requested revisions, an itemized list of medical expenses, and disclosure of the amount of attorney fees to be paid from the settlement.
Loyd’s counsel objected to disclosing fee amounts on attorney-client privilege grounds; the joint stipulation supplied everything except the fee amount.
The compensation court issued an Order of Disapproval of the lump-sum application, finding it could not determine whether the settlement was in Loyd’s best interests without fee disclosure; the court neither dismissed the application nor continued the hearing.
The parties appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court first addressed whether the disapproval order was a final, appealable order and whether the Rules of Professional Conduct comment conferred appellate jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the compensation court’s order disapproving the lump-sum settlement is a final, appealable order	Loyd argued the order is appealable (appeal filed within 30 days) and that Rule 3-501.6 comment permits appeal when privilege is implicated	Family Dollar argued the disapproval harmed settlement expectations and should be reviewable on appeal (but failed to file a proper cross-appeal form)	The order of disapproval, standing alone (without dismissal), is not a final, appealable order; appellate jurisdiction lacking, appeal dismissed
Whether the Nebraska Rules of Professional Conduct (comment to § 3-501.6) or a claim of privilege creates an independent right to immediate appellate review	Loyd argued Comment 11 to § 3-501.6 contemplates appeal after an adverse ruling and requires consultation about appeal	Family Dollar did not advance a conflicting statutory basis for immediate appellate review	The court held the Rules’ comment does not confer appellate jurisdiction; appeal rights are purely statutory and interlocutory privilege disputes are not appealable (other remedies like mandamus or contempt appeals may be appropriate)

State v. Uhing, 301 Neb. 768, 919 N.W.2d 909 (Neb. 2018) (appellate jurisdiction requires a final order)
Heckman v. Marchio, 296 Neb. 458, 894 N.W.2d 296 (Neb. 2017) (standards for appellate jurisdiction questions of law)
Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 577, 879 N.W.2d 30 (Neb. 2016) (an order in a special proceeding is appealable if it affects a substantial right)
Becerra v. United Parcel Service, 284 Neb. 414, 822 N.W.2d 327 (Neb. 2012) (appellate jurisdiction absent for nonfinal orders)
Hallie Mgmt. Co. v. Perry, 272 Neb. 81, 718 N.W.2d 531 (Neb. 2006) (orders compelling privileged discovery are not appealable as final orders)
Mohawk Indus. v. Carpenter, 558 U.S. 100 (U.S. 2009) (mandamus and other remedies act as safety valves for promptly correcting serious errors involving privileged information)