317 Neb. 744
Neb.2024Background
- Jennifer Prinz was employed as a housekeeper at Omaha Operations LLC (d/b/a Emerald Nursing & Rehab Omaha) in 2020, at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic.
- On July 17, 2020, after donning a UV-sterilized N95 mask at work, Prinz experienced a burning sensation and difficulty breathing; she was transported to a hospital and alleged she suffered persistent respiratory issues since then.
- Prinz had no documented history of respiratory problems prior to this incident, according to her treating physician.
- She subsequently filed a workers’ compensation claim seeking various benefits, asserting her respiratory injury was caused by the workplace incident.
- The employer denied the work-related injury and connection to her subsequent asthma but did not provide contrary expert testimony.
- The Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court ruled in Prinz’s favor, awarding her indemnity, medical, and future care benefits; Omaha Operations appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Causation—Work Injury | Prinz’s respiratory issues began immediately after the mask incident; no other triggers. | Prinz had a history of breathing problems; causation not established. | Marshall's opinion was sufficiently definite; record supports causation. |
| Foundation of Medical Expert’s Opinion | Treating physician’s opinion based on examinations and medical records; association with incident. | Physician disregarded past breathing history and was possibly mistaken about chemical exposure. | Admissibility concerns weight, not foundation; findings not clearly wrong. |
| Use of “Associated” in Causation Op. | Expert’s use of “associated” was adequate, given all evidence and context. | “Associated” is too indefinite; should not establish causation as a matter of law. | Context and certainty made opinion valid; evidence supports verdict. |
| Loss of Earning Capacity | Compensation court considered all statutory factors; 30% loss is supported. | Loss is speculative—amount is excessive compared to evidence. | Court’s calculation is supported by record; not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Spratt v. Crete Carrier Corp., 311 Neb. 262 (standard for reviewing factual findings in workers' comp cases)
- Parks v. Hy-Vee, 307 Neb. 927 (evidence viewed in light most favorable to successful workers’ comp party)
- Hynes v. Good Samaritan Hosp., 291 Neb. 757 (expert’s lack of total history goes to weight, not admissibility)
- Damme v. Pike Enters., 289 Neb. 620 (workers’ compensation court is judge of medical credibility)
- Martinez v. CMR Constr. & Roofing of Texas, 302 Neb. 618 (factors relevant to loss of earning capacity)