Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club, 308 Neb. 107

In 2001 Rogers suffered a workplace back injury and, as part of a settlement, executed a Form 50 naming a Nebraska physician as the provider for work-related care.
Rogers moved to Florida in 2010 and sought to designate Florida physician Jonathan Daitch as her Form 50 doctor; JSC refused and stopped paying for treatment, prompting Rogers to move to compel payment.
The Workers’ Compensation Court originally allowed Rogers to continue treatment with Dr. Daitch but issued an ambiguous order regarding whether he was being designated as the Form 50 physician and whether the court intended a review of his opioid regimen.
This court reversed and remanded, instructing the compensation court to state whether it was changing Rogers’ Form 50 physician under § 48-120(6) and to clarify any intended review of treatment, and to comply with Rule 11(A).
On remand the compensation court expressly appointed Dr. Daitch as Rogers’ Form 50 physician and clarified it was not ordering a formal review of his treatment—only encouraging exchange of reports—after which JSC appealed.
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, holding the remand order complied with the mandate and Rule 11(A), and refusing to resolve speculative challenges to future treatment before a present controversy existed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the remand order complied with Rule 11(A) (reasoned decision requirement)	Rogers: Order on remand plainly states findings supporting appointment of Dr. Daitch and cites the evidence relied on.	JSC: The order remains ambiguous about necessity and reasonableness of Dr. Daitch’s treatment and thus fails Rule 11(A).	Court: Order complied—it expressly found the change was "desirable or necessary," cited specific evidence, and resolved prior ambiguity.
Whether the compensation court was required on remand to decide whether Dr. Daitch’s opioid treatment is reasonable and necessary	Rogers: No; remand only required designation clarification; future treatment disputes are ripe for later challenge.	JSC: The court should have determined reasonableness/necessity of the treatment now.	Court: Not required—the remand did not direct such a determination; employers may challenge future treatment under § 48-120(6) when a live dispute exists.
Whether the compensation court exceeded the appellate mandate or improperly speculated about future disputes	Rogers: Court followed the mandate and avoided speculative rulings.	JSC: By failing to adjudicate treatment reasonableness, the court left unresolved rights and duties.	Court: No excess—appellate mandate was followed; resolving hypothetical future disputes would be improper speculation.

Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605, 935 N.W.2d 754 (2019) (prior appeal reversing ambiguous order and remanding for clarification under § 48-120(6) and Rule 11(A))
Picard v. P & C Group 1, 306 Neb. 292, 945 N.W.2d 183 (2020) (standard for appellate review of compensation court decisions)
Frans v. Waldinger Corp., 306 Neb. 574, 946 N.W.2d 666 (2020) (appellate courts independently review legal questions in workers’ compensation cases)
TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 941 N.W.2d 145 (2020) (trial court lacks power outside scope of appellate remand)
Smith-Helstrom v. Yonker, 253 Neb. 189, 569 N.W.2d 243 (1997) (when remanded with directions, lower court must comply with mandate)
Sellers v. Reefer Systems, 283 Neb. 760, 811 N.W.2d 293 (2012) (employer may contest future medical claims as unrelated or unnecessary under § 48-120(6))