Melton v. City of Holdrege, 309 Neb. 385

Background

Benjamin Melton, a journeyman lineman, suffered a below‑the‑knee amputation of his left leg in October 2011 and was fitted with a prosthesis that repeatedly caused fit/pain issues.
Melton returned to work in March 2012; the City paid 23 weeks TTD and ~83 3/7 weeks TPD; medical expenses were paid.
In May 2017 the City paid permanent partial disability benefits for a 100% loss of the foot and an additional 5% loss of the leg after receiving a letter that Melton had reached MMI; Melton filed a petition seeking additional benefits, waiting‑time penalties, attorney fees, interest, and vocational rehabilitation.
At trial the court found conflicting impairment opinions (32%–70% lower extremity ratings) but credited Melton’s testimony about retained knee/thigh function and awarded 150 weeks for the foot and 43 weeks (20% leg) for additional loss of leg function (total 193 weeks).
The court denied waiting‑time penalties and vocational rehabilitation, finding a reasonable controversy existed about when permanency payments for an amputation become due and that Melton had suitable employment.
Melton appealed; the Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, finding no clear error in the factual findings and no error of law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether impairment should be measured by leg function without prosthesis	Melton: court should evaluate loss of leg use absent prosthesis and award greater impairment	City: impairment properly measured by retained function and prosthesis use evidence	Court: No clear error — court considered retained knee/thigh function and did not base loss solely on prosthesis use
Whether Melton suffered total loss of use of the leg	Melton: without prosthesis leg is useless and merits total loss award	City: leg retained bending, some weight bearing, and function to use prosthesis; not a total loss	Court: Not a total loss — factual finding of retained function supported by record
Whether consecutive awards (toes + foot + leg) are allowable	Melton: entitled to consecutive payments for toes, foot, and leg under §48‑121(3)	City: below‑knee amputation is statutorily the loss of a foot, which encompasses toes; double recovery barred	Court: Statute treats below‑knee amputation as loss of a foot; no double recovery; award limited so combined weeks do not exceed leg schedule
Whether waiting‑time penalty/fees/interest are owed for delayed permanency payments	Melton: City delayed permanency payments when temporary benefits stopped, so penalty applies	City: permanency payments are due only after MMI; City paid within 30 days of proof of MMI	Court: No error — compensation court reasonably found a "reasonable controversy" existed about timing of permanency for amputation, so penalty denied
Whether vocational rehabilitation must be awarded	Melton: qualifies under §48‑162.01(3) and should receive rehab services	City: Melton returned to and retained suitable employment, so rehab unnecessary	Court: Denial affirmed — entitlement to vocational rehab is factual and evidence showed Melton was performing suitable work; award would be speculative

Key Cases Cited

Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 308 Neb. 107, 953 N.W.2d 9 (2021) (appellate review standards and questions of law in workers’ compensation)
Parks v. Hy‑Vee, 307 Neb. 927, 951 N.W.2d 504 (2020) (deference to compensation court factual findings)
Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292, 945 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (definition of reasonable controversy under §48‑125)
Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415, 865 N.W.2d 371 (2015) (MMI and permanency analysis)
Rodriguez v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 270 Neb. 757, 707 N.W.2d 232 (2005) (MMI requires all injuries to reach maximum medical healing)
Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311, 918 N.W.2d 249 (2018) (vocational rehabilitation entitlement is factual)
D’Quaix v. Chadron State College, 272 Neb. 859, 725 N.W.2d 558 (2007) (avoiding double recovery for a single injury)