Melton v. City of Holdrege
309 Neb. 385
Neb.2021Background
- Benjamin Melton, a journeyman lineman, suffered a work-related amputation a few inches below the left knee in October 2011 and was fitted with a prosthesis that repeatedly caused fit and comfort problems.
- He returned to work March 14, 2012; the City paid 23 weeks of temporary total disability and ~83 weeks of temporary partial disability; medical expenses were paid.
- In May 2017 the City paid permanent partial benefits based on a 100% loss of the foot and a 5% loss of the leg; Melton later petitioned for additional benefits, waiting-time penalties, attorney fees, interest, and vocational rehabilitation.
- At trial the court credited Melton’s testimony about ongoing pain and limitations, admitted conflicting medical impairment ratings (32%–70% lower-extremity ratings), and found Melton had reached medical stability by 2017.
- The compensation court awarded future medical care and 193 weeks of combined benefits (150 weeks for loss of the foot plus 43 weeks for a 20% additional loss of leg function), denied waiting-time penalties/fees, and denied vocational rehabilitation. Melton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether impairment should be measured without the prosthesis | Melton: impairment must be evaluated based on leg function without the prosthesis | City: court may consider retained function and prosthesis-assisted abilities | Court: did not base finding on prosthesis; factual finding that Melton retained some leg function (can bend knee, support residual limb) was not clearly wrong |
| Whether Melton suffered total loss of use of his leg | Melton: leg is useless without prosthesis; entitled to total loss compensation | City: retained knee/thigh strength and function preclude total loss finding | Court: leg not useless; trial court’s finding of only partial (20%) loss of leg function affirmed |
| Whether toes + foot + leg awards should run consecutively (double recovery) | Melton: entitled to consecutive awards for toes, foot, and leg under §48-121(3) | City: below-knee amputation is statutorily the loss of a foot (which necessarily covers toes); cannot receive double recovery | Court: statute treats below-knee amputation as loss of foot (includes toes); avoided double recovery; combined award limited so total does not exceed statutory leg award |
| Whether waiting-time penalty, interest, and attorney fees were owed for late payment of permanent benefits | Melton: permanent payments were due when temporary benefits ceased; no reasonable controversy, so penalties owed | City: permanency payments are due only after MMI; it paid promptly after receiving proof of MMI, so a reasonable controversy existed | Court: a reasonable controversy existed because timing for triggering permanency payments in amputation cases was an unanswered legal question; no penalty awarded |
| Whether vocational rehabilitation must be awarded | Melton: met statutory criteria and should receive vocational services | City: Melton obtained and maintained suitable employment; rehab not necessary | Court: vocational rehab is a factual question; Melton was performing suitable work with prior training/experience, so denial was not clearly wrong |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 308 Neb. 107, 953 N.W.2d 9 (2021) (appellate courts independently decide questions of law in workers’ compensation cases)
- Parks v. Hy-Vee, 307 Neb. 927, 951 N.W.2d 504 (2020) (factual findings by compensation court are not disturbed unless clearly wrong)
- Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292, 945 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (defines “reasonable controversy” under § 48-125 and when waiting-time penalties apply)
- Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311, 918 N.W.2d 249 (2018) (entitlement to vocational rehabilitation is ordinarily a question of fact)
- Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415, 865 N.W.2d 371 (2015) (MMI and permanency principles in workers’ compensation)
- D’Quaix v. Chadron State College, 272 Neb. 859, 725 N.W.2d 558 (2007) (general rule against double recovery for a single injury)
- Rodriguez v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 270 Neb. 757, 707 N.W.2d 232 (2005) (MMI is not reached until all injuries from an accident have reached maximum medical healing)