Melton v. City of Holdrege
309 Neb. 385
Neb.2021Background
- Benjamin Melton, a journey‑man lineman, suffered a work injury in Oct 2011 resulting in a left below‑knee amputation; he was fitted with a prosthesis but experienced fit, pain, and function issues.
- City of Holdrege paid 23 weeks of temporary total disability and about 83 3/7 weeks of temporary partial disability; in May 2017 the City paid permanent partial benefits for a 100% loss of the foot and an additional 5% leg loss.
- Melton filed a workers’ compensation petition (May 2017) seeking permanent benefits, vocational rehabilitation, waiting‑time penalties, attorney fees, and interest; trial occurred in 2020 after Melton had obtained other employment (corrosion technician) in 2018.
- The compensation court found Melton reached MMI and awarded future medical care plus 150 weeks (statutory foot) and an additional 43 weeks (20% additional loss of leg function), for a combined 193 weeks of compensation.
- The court denied waiting‑time penalties/attorney fees (finding a reasonable controversy about timing of permanency payments) and denied vocational rehabilitation (Melton was performing suitable work); Melton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Melton) | Defendant's Argument (City) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether loss/use of leg should be assessed without prosthesis | Court should evaluate leg function without prosthesis and award greater impairment | City relied on record showing retained knee/thigh function and prosthesis use | Court considered retained function and prosthesis; finding that Melton had not lost all functional use of leg affirmed |
| Whether Melton suffered total loss of use of leg | Leg is useless without prosthesis; should be total loss award | Residual limb retained knee flexion, some weightbearing and function | Court found evidence supported retained function; no total loss award |
| Whether consecutive awards are owed for toe loss + foot + leg | Toes, foot, and leg losses should run consecutively under §48‑121(3) | Below‑knee amputation is statutorily the loss of a foot (which inherently includes toes); avoid double recovery | Court held statutory scheme treats below‑knee amputation as foot loss; avoided double recovery and limited combined award to not exceed leg maximum |
| Whether waiting‑time penalty/fees/interest apply for delayed permanency payment | City delayed permanent payments after discontinuing temporary benefits; penalty warranted | City argued permanency owed only after MMI and it timely paid once provided proof of MMI | Court found a reasonable controversy existed about whether discontinuance of temporary benefits triggers permanency for amputations; denied penalties; affirmed |
| Whether vocational rehabilitation required under §48‑162.01(3) | Melton satisfied statutory criteria and should get vocational services | Melton was employed in suitable work and vocational services were speculative | Court found entitlement is factual; Melton was performing suitable work so rehabilitation not warranted; denial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club, 308 Neb. 107 (appellate law/fact roles in workers' comp review)
- Parks v. Hy‑Vee, 307 Neb. 927 (factual findings of compensation court not disturbed unless clearly wrong)
- Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292 (defines "reasonable controversy" under §48‑125)
- Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311 (vocational rehabilitation entitlement is ordinarily a question of fact)
- Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415 (MMI and permanency principles)
- Smith v. Mark Chrisman Trucking, 285 Neb. 826 (interpretation of scheduled member compensation)
- Rodriguez v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 270 Neb. 757 (MMI not reached until all injuries have healed)
- D'Quaix v. Chadron State College, 272 Neb. 859 (avoiding double recovery)
- Herold v. Constructors, Inc., 201 Neb. 697 (scheduled member principles)
- Jacob v. Columbia Ins. Group, 2 Neb. App. 473 (Court of Appeals discussion of "practical intents and purposes" test)