- 574 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

FRANS v. WALDINGER CORP.

Cite as 306 Neb. 574

Eric M. Frans, appellee, v. Waldinger Corporation 

and EMC Insurance Co., appellants.

Filed July 24, 2020. No. S-19-482.

1. Workers’ Compensation: Appeal and Error. An appellate court is 

obligated in workers’ compensation cases to make its own determinations as to questions of law.

2. Courts: Appeal and Error. After receiving a mandate, a trial court is 

without power to affect rights and duties outside the scope of the remand 

from an appellate court.

Petition for further review from the Court of Appeals, 

Moore, Chief Judge, and Bishop and Arterburn, Judges, on 

appeal thereto from the Workers’ Compensation Court, Daniel 

R. Fridrich, Judge. Judgment of Court of Appeals affirmed 

as modified.

Caroline M. Westerhold and Jenna M. Christensen, of Baylor 

Evnen, L.L.P., for appellants.

Maynard H. Weinberg, of Weinberg & Weinberg, P.C., for 

appellee.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Funke, Papik, 

and Freudenberg, JJ.

Papik, J.

The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of 

the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court and remanded 

the cause with directions to dismiss Eric M. Frans’ amended 

petition in its entirety. We see no basis for directing Frans’ 

entire petition to be dismissed and believe this direction to be 

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/

10/09/2020 12:48 AM CDT
- 575 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

FRANS v. WALDINGER CORP.

Cite as 306 Neb. 574

inconsistent with the substance of the Court of Appeals’ opinion. On petition for further review, we thus modify the Court 

of Appeals’ opinion to direct the dismissal of Frans’ amended 

petition to a limited extent.

BACKGROUND

In October 2002, Frans was injured in an accident arising 

out of and in the course of his employment when a garage door 

struck him on the top of his head. He initially reported injuries 

to his head, neck, and back.

In 2008, Frans filed a petition in the Workers’ Compensation 

Court against his employer, Waldinger Corporation, and 

its workers’ compensation insurance carrier (collectively 

Waldinger), alleging he was injured in the 2002 work accident. The parties later entered into a joint settlement agreement in which they agreed that Frans injured his lower back 

in the 2002 work accident and “to resolve, on a final basis, 

all issues except [Frans’] entitlement to receive reasonable 

and necessary medical treatment as a result of [his] low back 

condition.” The agreement stated that Waldinger would be 

“fully discharged from all further liability, except for future 

reasonable and necessary medical care pursuant to Neb. Rev. 

Stat. §48-120, . . . on account of the accident and injury(s) 

of 10/30/02, whether now known or to become known in the 

future, whether physical or mental.” The compensation court 

entered an order approving the settlement agreement and dismissing the petition.

Years later, Frans filed a petition in the compensation court 

seeking reimbursement for what he claimed was continuing 

medical treatment related to the 2002 work accident. In an 

amended petition, Frans alleged he had injured his head, neck, 

and lower back and requested “continuing medical treatment 

including but not limited to treatment for depression arising as 

a result of the 10/30/02 back injury as well as other treatment 

related to the back injury.”

A trial was held and evidence was adduced, including, 

among other things, medical records and expert opinions of 
- 576 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

FRANS v. WALDINGER CORP.

Cite as 306 Neb. 574

medical professionals. Following trial, the compensation court 

entered an award. The compensation court referenced an earlier order in which it stated that the parties’ 2008 settlement agreement did not preclude Frans from seeking ongoing 

medical treatment, including treatment for depression and 

anxiety, if such injuries were a result of his low-back condition. The compensation court found that Frans was entitled to 

reimbursement for treatment of his current low-back pain. It 

ordered Waldinger to pay for certain medical treatment and 

physical therapy for his lower back. The compensation court 

also found that there was sufficient evidence to establish 

Frans’ depression and anxiety were caused by his low-back 

condition and that he was thus entitled to recover for treatment 

of his depression and anxiety. It found the evidence was insufficient, however, to show that Frans’ head and neck injuries 

were causally related to his low-back condition and concluded 

Frans was not entitled to reimbursement for medical treatment 

for such injuries.

On appeal, the Court of Appeals found that the compensation court did not err in determining the 2008 settlement agreement did not preclude Frans from seeking medical treatment 

for depression and anxiety if such treatment was reasonable 

and necessary as a result of Frans’ low-back condition. The 

Court of Appeals disagreed, however, that the evidence was 

sufficient to establish Frans’ depression and anxiety developed 

as a result of his low-back condition, and it thus concluded 

Frans was not entitled to medical treatment for his depression 

and anxiety. The Court of Appeals did not address or find error 

in the compensation court’s finding that Frans was entitled to 

reimbursement for treatment for his low-back pain.

The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the compensation court and remanded the cause “with directions to 

dismiss Frans’ amended petition.” Similar language appears in 

the opinion’s introduction.

Frans petitioned for further review. Among other assignments of error, he assigned that the Court of Appeals erred 
- 577 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

FRANS v. WALDINGER CORP.

Cite as 306 Neb. 574

in directing that his amended petition, in which he sought 

reimbursement for future medical treatment for his low-back 

condition, be dismissed. We granted Frans’ petition for further 

review solely as to that assignment of error.

ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR

As noted, the sole assignment of error on which we have 

granted further review is Frans’ contention that the Court 

of Appeals erred by directing the dismissal of his amended 

petition.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[1] An appellate court is obligated in workers’ compensation cases to make its own determinations as to questions of 

law. Rogers v. Jack’s Supper Club, 304 Neb. 605, 935 N.W.2d 

754 (2019).

ANALYSIS

Frans argues that the Court of Appeals erred by directing 

the dismissal of his amended petition in its entirety. He points 

out that the Court of Appeals did not reverse the compensation 

court’s determination that he was entitled to reimbursement 

for treatment prescribed by his physician and physical therapy 

for his low-back condition. In its response to Frans’ petition for 

further review, Waldinger did not dispute Frans’ contention that 

his entire amended petition should not be dismissed. Instead, 

it argued that, when read in its entirety, the Court of Appeals’ 

opinion should be understood to direct only a dismissal of 

Frans’ amended petition to the extent it sought recovery for 

treatment of his depression and anxiety.

After granting Frans’ petition for further review, we issued 

an order to show cause, pursuant to Neb. Ct. R. App. P. 

§ 2-107(A)(3) (rev. 2017), as to why the Court of Appeals’ 

decision should not be modified so that it directs the compensation court to dismiss Frans’ amended petition only to 

the extent it seeks reimbursement for treatment of depression 
- 578 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance Sheets

306 Nebraska Reports

FRANS v. WALDINGER CORP.

Cite as 306 Neb. 574

and anxiety and head and neck injuries. Waldinger did not 

file a response.

[2] Reading its opinion as a whole, we find it unlikely that 

the Court of Appeals intended to direct the compensation court 

to dismiss the entirety of Frans’ amended petition on remand. 

Its language, however, directs the dismissal of the amended 

petition without qualification. We believe this language could 

be understood by the compensation court as instructing it to 

dismiss the amended petition as a whole, including that portion on which it awarded reimbursement for treatment of 

Frans’ lower back. We have stated that after receiving a mandate, a trial court is without power to affect rights and duties 

outside the scope of the remand from an appellate court. See 

TransCanada Keystone Pipeline v. Tanderup, 305 Neb. 493, 

941 N.W.2d 145 (2020). We have further stated that “when a 

lower court is given specific instructions on remand, it must 

comply with the specific instructions and has no discretion 

to deviate from the mandate.” Id. at 502, 941 N.W.2d at 153. 

Given our case law that a lower court has no power to deviate 

from the specific instructions in an appellate court’s mandate, 

we believe it is appropriate to modify the Court of Appeals’ 

instruction so that it is consistent with the substance of its decision and does not jeopardize the recovery awarded to Frans by 

the compensation court on which the Court of Appeals did not 

find reversible error.

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, we modify the Court of Appeals’ opinion 

so that it directs the compensation court to dismiss Frans’ 

amended petition only to the extent it seeks reimbursement for 

treatment for depression and anxiety, as well as the head and 

neck injuries. In all other respects, we affirm.

Affirmed as modified.

Stacy, J., not participating.