Parks v. Hy-Vee
307 Neb. 927
Neb.2020Background
- In 2008 Parks suffered a work-related low-back injury while employed by Hy-Vee; she sought workers’ compensation benefits in 2010. The initial award found a compensable low-back injury, ordered past and future medical care for nonsurgical treatment, and did not address mental-health claims or MMI for the back.
- Over time Parks continued treatment, reached MMI for the back (stipulated as March 3, 2014), and Hy-Vee paid some permanent partial disability benefits voluntarily; Parks later sought enforcement of additional medical care and benefits.
- The parties stipulated several issues for a consolidated trial, including whether the work accident caused chronic pain, whether it aggravated preexisting mental-health conditions, whether specified medical and mileage expenses (Exhibit 69) were reasonable and necessary, and the extent of permanent disability.
- At trial competing medical opinions were presented: Parks’ treating and examining physicians attributed chronic low-back pain and worsening depression/anxiety to the workplace injury; Hy-Vee’s experts opined the pain was psychogenic (somatic symptom disorder) and mental-health problems predated the injury.
- The compensation court awarded permanent total disability, found chronic pain caused by the work injury, found the injury aggravated Parks’ depression and anxiety, awarded mileage and—after a § 48-180 motion—ordered Hy-Vee to pay the medical expenses listed in Exhibit 69. Hy-Vee appealed asserting law-of-the-case errors and improper use of § 48-180.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Parks) | Defendant's Argument (Hy-Vee) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Parks’ chronic low-back pain is caused by the work injury or by a somatic symptom disorder | Chronic pain is work-caused; treating and exam physicians so testify | Pain is psychogenic (somatic disorder); experts say not work-caused | Court credited Parks’ physicians and testimony; factual finding that pain is work-caused affirmed |
| Whether the law-of-the-case doctrine barred reliance on Hy-Vee’s experts (Davis, Massey) about psychogenic pain | Law-of-the-case not controlling; even if disregarded, court found Hy-Vee’s experts unpersuasive | Law-of-the-case prevents relitigation inconsistent with initial award | Court held compensation court did not err: it made an independent credibility/factual finding rejecting Hy-Vee’s experts |
| Whether the court could find aggravation of preexisting depression/anxiety given the initial award | Aggravation claim was within the parties’ stipulation and trial scope; evidence supports causation | Doctrine/ procedure barred awarding compensation for a “new” injury on modification | Court held the question was not decided earlier, parties had stipulated the issue, evidence supported aggravation, and award was permissible |
| Whether the court exceeded authority under § 48-180 by modifying the further award to include Exhibit 69 medical bills | § 48-180 authorizes correction/modification; parties had litigated Exhibit 69 and evidence showed reasonableness/necessity | § 48-180 permits correcting only court mistakes (not parties’ omissions); court improperly remedied plaintiff’s counsel mistake | Court interpreted § 48-180 by plain text; it allows modification on motion within 14 days and need not be limited to court-made errors; modification was lawful and supported by the record |
Key Cases Cited
- Aboytes-Mosqueda v. LFA Inc., 306 Neb. 277 (explains appellate standard of review in workers’ compensation cases)
- Frans v. Waldinger Corp., 306 Neb. 574 (appellate courts make independent determinations of law in workers’ compensation matters)
- Gardner v. International Paper Destr. & Recycl., 291 Neb. 415 (describes law-of-the-case doctrine)
- Manchester v. Drivers Mgmt., 278 Neb. 776 (preexisting disease plus aggravation may be compensable)
- Sweeney v. Kerstens & Lee, Inc., 268 Neb. 752 (a subsequent aggravation must be a direct and natural result of the work accident to be compensable)
- Rader v. Speer Auto, 287 Neb. 116 (distinguishes impairment and disability when evaluating modification under § 48-141)
- Fentress v. Westin, Inc., 304 Neb. 619 (broad authority of the compensation court to hear motions under § 48-162.03(1))
- Carr v. Ganz, 26 Neb. App. 14 (discusses the scope of § 48-180 post-amendment)
- Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605 (statutory interpretation principles; give plain meaning to statutory language)