Smith v. Mark Chrisman Trucking
285 Neb. 826
Neb.2013Background
- Smith suffered a work-related injury October 23, 2007 at Mark Chrisman Trucking.
- LB 588 amended §48-121(3) to allow loss-of-earning-capacity recovery if criteria met.
- Operative date for the amendment was January 1, 2008.
- WC Court held amendment substantive, not procedural, and thus prospective only.
- Smith’s accident occurred before the operative date, so amendment does not apply to his claim.
- Workers’ Compensation Court granted Chrisman Trucking summary judgment; Smith appeals, court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does LB 588 apply to Smith’s claim? | Smith seeks loss of earning capacity under amendment. | Chrisman Trucking contends amendment does not apply retroactively. | No retroactive application; amendment prospective only. |
| Is the LB 588 amendment substantive or procedural? | Amendment provides new remedy for earning capacity. | Amendment changes remedy for multiple injuries. | Amendment is substantive. |
| Should the amendment apply to Smith given its operative date? | Operative date supports applicability. | Accident predates operative date. | Applied prospectively; not applicable to Smith. |
Key Cases Cited
- Visoso v. Cargill Meat Solutions, 826 N.W.2d 845 (Neb. 2013) (recognizes prospective application of substantive amendments)
- Young v. Dodge Cty. Bd. of Supervisors, 493 N.W.2d 160 (Neb. 1992) (retroactivity requires clear legislative intent for prospective/retroactive apply)
- In re Interest of Karlie D., 811 N.W.2d 214 (Neb. 2012) (distinguishes substantive vs. procedural amendments)