Wynne v. Menard, Inc., 910 N.W.2d 96

Machelle Wynne suffered two workplace injuries (knee in Sept 2013; shoulder in July 2014) while employed by Menard, Inc.
Workers’ Compensation Court found compensable injuries and ordered further treatment and temporary benefits; Wynne later had rotator cuff surgery and reached MMI in Oct 2016.
Functional Capacity Evaluation (FCE) and doctors’ reports produced conflicting opinions: FCE limited overhead/forward use but allowed sitting; Dr. Cheloha (family physician) imposed a restriction that Wynne could not sit more than 10 minutes at a time and opined Wynne could not be gainfully employed; Dr. Scott (occupational medicine) concluded Wynne could work 8 hours/day and that the sitting restriction lacked support.
Vocational expert Ted Stricklett initially opined a 100% loss of earning capacity but later amended his opinion after the FCE and Dr. Scott’s report.
Wynne served requests for admission; Menard admitted that Cheloha and Stricklett had expressed certain opinions but noted Cheloha did not label restrictions as "permanent." Wynne moved for summary judgment seeking a finding of permanent and total disability and awards for scheduled member injuries.
The Compensation Court awarded benefits for scheduled member injuries (granting summary judgment on that issue) but denied permanent and total disability; Wynne appealed alleging erroneous treatment of admissions, improper evidentiary rulings, and impermissible fact‑weighing at summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Effect of requests for admission	Menard’s admissions conclusively established Wynne is permanently and totally disabled	Menard only admitted that experts gave certain opinions, not the truth of those opinions	Admissions only established that the opinions were made, not their truth; plaintiff’s claim fails on this ground
Admissibility of unsworn/exhibit evidence at summary judgment	Exhibits (FCE, therapist letters, vocational reports) were inadmissible under summary judgment evidence rules	Compensation Court may relax strict evidence rules; exhibits bear on triable issues	Court need not resolve admissibility because admissible evidence by defendant (Dr. Scott affidavit/report) created a genuine issue of material fact
Whether summary judgment proper on permanent and total disability	Wynne argued she met prima facie burden for permanent and total disability and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law	Menard presented contrary competent evidence creating disputed factual issues	Summary judgment on permanent and total disability was improper because reasonable minds could differ; triable issue exists
Whether court improperly weighed evidence at summary judgment	Wynne argued the court effectively resolved factual disputes (weighed evidence)	Menard argued its evidence rebutted Wynne’s prima facie showing	Court erred by weighing evidence and resolving factual disputes at summary judgment; reversal and remand required

Anderson v. EMCOR Group, 298 Neb. 174, 903 N.W.2d 29 (discussing standards for permanent and total disability)
Moreno v. City of Gering, 293 Neb. 320, 878 N.W.2d 529 (procedure on disability/admissions issues)
C.E. v. Prairie Fields Family Medicine, 287 Neb. 667, 844 N.W.2d 56 (summary judgment—when evidence supports contrary inferences)
Cookson v. Ramge, 907 N.W.2d 296 (interpretation of evidentiary rules in compensation proceedings)