Melton v. City of Holdrege
309 Neb. 385
| Neb. | 2021Background
- Benjamin Melton, a journeyman lineman, suffered a work injury in Oct. 2011 resulting in a left below‑the‑knee amputation; he was fitted with a prosthesis and returned to work in Mar. 2012 but experienced ongoing fit, pain, and function issues.
- The City paid all medicals, 23 weeks of temporary total disability, and ~83 3/7 weeks of temporary partial disability; in May 2017 it paid permanent partial disability benefits for a 100% loss of the foot and an additional 5% loss to the leg after receiving a record stating MMI.
- Melton filed a petition (May 2017) seeking additional permanent benefits, waiting‑time penalties, attorney fees, interest, and vocational rehabilitation; by trial (2020) he had obtained substantial gainful employment with another employer.
- The compensation court found Melton had a 150‑week statutory loss for the foot and an additional 20% loss of leg function (43 weeks), awarding a combined 193 weeks; it ruled permanent foot benefits begin when temporary disability ends or MMI, whichever first occurs, and set June 17, 2012 as the start date.
- The court denied waiting‑time penalties/attorney fees (finding a reasonable controversy on timing of permanency payments) and denied vocational rehabilitation because Melton was performing suitable work; Melton appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court improperly assessed loss of leg by evaluating function with prosthesis | Melton: court failed to evaluate loss/use of leg without prosthesis | City: award properly accounted for retained knee/thigh function and prosthesis use | Held: court did not base impairment on prosthesis use; factual finding that Melton retained functional use was not clearly wrong |
| Whether Melton was entitled to total loss of use of leg | Melton: leg is useless without prosthesis and merits total loss award | City: residual knee/thigh function precludes total loss | Held: not total loss; record supports retained function and 20% leg loss beyond foot compensation |
| Whether Melton entitled to consecutive awards for toes + foot + leg | Melton: statute requires consecutive payments for multiple members | City: below‑knee amputation is statutory equivalent of foot (includes toes); cannot double recover | Held: statute treats below‑knee amputation as loss of foot; awarding toes separately would permit double recovery; no consecutive awards beyond the calculated combined weeks |
| Whether waiting‑time penalty, interest, attorney fees are owed for delayed permanency payments | Melton: City delayed permanent payments after temporary benefits ceased and penalty applies | City: payments made after proof of MMI; reasonable dispute exists on timing | Held: reasonable controversy existed (unanswered question of law about when amputation permanency payments must begin), so penalties denied |
| Whether vocational rehabilitation must be awarded | Melton: satisfies statutory criteria and should receive vocational services | City: Melton had suitable employment and did not need services now | Held: entitlement is factual; court reasonably denied vocational rehabilitation because Melton had suitable work and award cannot be speculative |
Key Cases Cited
- Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club, 308 Neb. 107, 953 N.W.2d 9 (2021) (appellate law on questions of law and MMI timing in workers' compensation)
- Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292, 945 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (definition of reasonable controversy under § 48‑125)
- Parks v. Hy‑Vee, 307 Neb. 927, 951 N.W.2d 504 (2020) (standard on appellate review of factual findings)
- Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415, 865 N.W.2d 371 (2015) (MMI and permanency principles)
- Rodriguez v. Hirschbach Motor Lines, 270 Neb. 757, 707 N.W.2d 232 (2005) (MMI not reached until all injuries stabilized)
- D'Quaix v. Chadron State College, 272 Neb. 859, 725 N.W.2d 558 (2007) (no double recovery rule and interpretation of scheduled member compensation)
- Herold v. Constructors, Inc., 201 Neb. 697, 271 N.W.2d 542 (1978) (principle that injury to lesser member generally controls absent unusual effect)
- Jacob v. Columbia Ins. Group, 2 Neb. App. 473, 511 N.W.2d 211 (1994) (Court of Appeals' discussion of "practical intents and purposes" test for usefulness of a member)