Melton v. City of Holdrege
309 Neb. 385
Neb.2021Background
- Benjamin Melton, a journeyman lineman, suffered a work-related below-the-knee amputation of his left leg in October 2011 and was fitted for a prosthesis in December 2011.
- The City of Holdrege paid temporary total and temporary partial disability benefits, later paid permanent partial disability benefits for a 100% loss of the foot and an additional 5% loss to the leg.
- Melton returned to work in March 2012 but continued to have pain, prosthesis fit problems, and a 2014 stump revision; by 2018 he worked as a corrosion technician for another employer.
- Melton filed a petition (May 2017) seeking additional permanent benefits (including separate awards for toes, foot, and leg), waiting-time penalties/attorney fees, and vocational rehabilitation.
- The workers’ compensation court awarded 150 weeks for loss of the foot plus 43 weeks (20%) for additional leg-function loss (total 193 weeks), denied waiting-time penalties and vocational rehabilitation, and found a factual/legal controversy about the timing of permanent-payments.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: no clear error in factual findings, no double recovery, reasonable controversy existed (so no penalties), and vocational rehabilitation was not warranted because Melton was performing suitable work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impairment should be measured based on leg without prosthesis | Melton: court failed to evaluate loss of leg without prosthesis | City: court properly considered functional use including retained knee/thigh strength | Court: court assessed retained function correctly; finding that leg was not totally nonfunctional is not clearly wrong |
| Whether Melton suffered total loss of use of his leg | Melton: leg is useless without prosthesis; should be total loss | City: Melton retained knee/thigh function enabling prosthesis use and some weight-bearing | Court: leg retained functional use; total loss not shown; 20% leg impairment affirmed |
| Whether separate/consecutive awards for toes, foot, and leg are required | Melton: statute requires consecutive awards for multiple parts | City: below-knee amputation is statutory equivalent of loss of foot (includes toes); consecutive awards would double recovery | Court: statute treats below-knee amputation as loss of foot; awarding toes separately would permit double recovery; affirmed combined 193-week award |
| Whether waiting-time penalty/fees and vocational rehabilitation should be awarded | Melton: City delayed permanent payments for foot so penalties apply; vocational rehab warranted under statute | City: reasonable controversy existed about when permanent benefits were due; Melton had suitable employment so rehab not necessary | Court: reasonable controversy existed regarding timing of permanency (no penalties); Melton was in suitable employment—no vocational rehab awarded |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 308 Neb. 107 (Neb. 2021) (appellate courts decide questions of law in workers’ compensation cases)
- Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292 (Neb. 2020) (discussing "reasonable controversy" under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-125)
- Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311 (Neb. 2018) (entitlement to vocational rehabilitation is ordinarily a question of fact)
- Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415 (Neb. 2015) (MMI and permanency principles)
- Rodriguez v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 270 Neb. 757 (Neb. 2005) (MMI not reached until all injuries have reached maximum healing)
- D’Quaix v. Chadron State College, 272 Neb. 859 (Neb. 2007) (general rule against double recovery)
- Herold v. Constructors, Inc., 201 Neb. 697 (Neb. 1978) (scheduled-member compensation principles)
- Jacob v. Columbia Ins. Group, 2 Neb. App. 473 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994) (discussing "practical intents and purposes" test for functional loss)