- 44 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

HASSAN v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS

Cite as 302 Neb. 44

Abdi Hassan, appellant, v. Trident Seaf

Liberty Mutual Insurance, its wor

compensation insurer, appell

___ N.W.2d ___

Filed January 11, 2019. No. S-18-255.

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. ____: ____. Determinations by a trial judge of the Workers’ 

Compensation Court will not be disturbed on appeal unless they are 

contrary to law or depend on findings of fact that are clearly wrong in 

light of the evidence.

3. Workers’ Compensation: Jurisdiction: Statutes. As a statutorily created court, the Workers’ Compensation Court is a tribunal of limited and 

special jurisdiction and has only such authority as has been conferred on 

it by statute.

4. Workers’ Compensation: Employer and Employee: Statutes. Under 

the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act, in most compensation cases, 

there must be at least one statutory employer and one statutory employee 

for the compensation court to acquire jurisdiction.

5. Workers’ Compensation: Employer and Employee: Statutes: Words 

and Phrases. For the purpose of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation 

Act, the terms “employer” and “employee” are not words of common 

understanding, but, rather, of statutory definition.

Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court: Thomas E

Stine, Judge. Affirme

Travis Allan Spier, of Atwood, Holsten, Brown, Deaver & 

Spier Law Firm, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library

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

02/01/2019 12:10 AM CST
- 45 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

HASSAN v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS

Cite as 302 Neb. 44

Robert Kinney-Walker, of Law Office of James W. Nubel, 

for appellees.

Heavican, C.J., Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stac

Papik, and Freudenberg 

Miller-Lerman,

NATURE OF CASE

On July 21, 2015, appellant Abdi Hassan sustained a workrelated injury in the course of his employment with appellee 

Trident Seafoods at Trident Seafoods’ Alaska plant. Hassan was 

a Nebraska resident when he was hired by Trident Seafoods, a 

State of Washington corporation without a permanent presence in Nebraska. Although Hassan received certain benefits 

in Alaska, he later filed a petition in the Nebraska Workers’ 

Compensation Court. The sole issue before us is whether the 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court correctly determined 

that it lacked jurisdiction and dismissed his claim. Because we 

agree with the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court that 

Trident Seafoods was not a statutory employer subject to the 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act, we affirm.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Hassan resided in Lexington, Nebraska, and worked as a 

meat trimmer at a meat processing plant. In 2015, Hassan 

learned from a friend that Trident Seafoods was hiring and, 

with the friend’s help, he completed an online application. 

He then attended an in-person recruitment event hosted by 

Trident Seafoods at a hotel conference facility in Omaha, 

Nebraska. Trident Seafoods rented conference space for the 

event, and Hassan met and interviewed with several of Trident 

Seafoods’ employees. Trident Seafoods did not employ workers in Nebraska year round, but it sent a recruitment team to 

Nebraska to recruit seasonal workers one or two times each 

year from 2013 through 2016. Trident Seafoods hires employees from all over the country to staff its operations in the 

Pacific Northwest and Alaska.
- 46 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

HASSAN v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS

Cite as 302 Neb. 44

At the event in Omaha, Hassan completed an onsite drug test 

administered by Trident Seafoods employees. Hassan recalled 

observing around six Trident Seafoods employees at the 

recruitment event. However, Trident Seafoods maintains that 

the number of recruiters was fewer than six. After he returned 

home from the recruitment event, Hassan remained in contact 

with Trident Seafoods and continued to move forward with 

the online employment application process. On June 8, 2015, 

Hassan executed a contract for hire in Seattle, Washington, and 

was hired as a seafood processor for the upcoming season.

While working in Alaska, Hassan suffered a low-back injury. 

Alaska’s Department of Labor and Workforce Development 

(Alaska Department) established a case file for Hassan’s injuries. Trident Seafoods’ Alaska workers’ compensation insurer, 

Liberty Mutual Insurance, accepted Hassan’s claim and paid 

over $30,000 in medical expenses and indemnity to Hassan, 

based on Alaska law.

Hassan’s work injuries resulted in permanent physical 

restrictions which prevent him from returning to his preaccident work capacity level. Following his injury, Hassan returned 

to Lexington.

The Alaska Department referred Hassan to a rehabilitation 

specialist in Nebraska who evaluated him and determined that 

Hassan met the requirements necessary to receive reemployment benefits under Alaska workers’ compensation law. On 

December 1, 2016, the Alaska Department sent Hassan a letter 

to inform him he was eligible for reemployment benefits. The 

letter indicated that he could elect to receive reemployment 

benefits. The letter noted that if Hassan failed to complete the 

required form within 30 days after receipt of the letter, the 

reemployment benefits would terminate. Hassan did not complete the required form, and the Alaska Department deemed 

him noncooperative.

On March 16, 2017, Hassan filed a petition in the Nebraska 

Workers’ Compensation Court and claimed benefits under the 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act. Trident Seafoods and 
- 47 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

HASSAN v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS

Cite as 302 Neb. 44

Liberty Mutual Insurance denied that the Nebraska Workers’ 

Compensation Court had jurisdiction and moved to dismiss.

The compensation court held a hearing and admitted evidence including personnel records, email records, indemnity 

payment summaries, employment policies, discovery responses, 

and transcripts of depositions taken of Hassan and of a senior 

recruiter at Trident Seafoods. In a written order, filed February 

14, 2018, the compensation court dismissed Hassan’s petition 

for lack of jurisdiction.

The compensation court found that Trident Seafoods was 

not a statutory employer under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-106(1) 

(Reissue 2010), because Trident Seafoods was not performing work in Nebraska. The written order noted that Trident 

Seafoods’ primary business operation is the manufacturing and 

production of seafood and that recruiting workers in Nebraska 

is not “performing work” as understood under § 48-106(1).

The compensation court also concluded that Hassan was 

not a statutory employee under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-115(2)(c) 

(Reissue 2010). The compensation court noted that the online 

correspondence between Hassan and Trident Seafoods was 

preliminary to the contract of hire executed on June 8, 2015, in 

Seattle and that thus, Hassan’s contract for hire was not made 

in Nebraska.

Hassan appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

Hassan claims, summarized and restated, that the compensation court erred when it concluded that it did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case.

STANDARDS OF REVIEW

Under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-185 (Cum. Supp. 2016), the 

judgment made by the compensation court shall have the same 

force and effect as a jury verdict in a civil case and may be 

modified, reversed, or set aside only upon the grounds that (1) 

the compensation court acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by fraud; 
- 48 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

HASSAN v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS

Cite as 302 Neb. 44

(3) there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to 

warrant the making of the order, judgment, or award; or (4) 

the findings of fact by the compensation court do not support 

the order or award. Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311, 918 

N.W.2d 249 (2018).

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

law. Id.

[2] Determinations by a trial judge of the Workers’ 

Compensation Court will not be disturbed on appeal unless 

they are contrary to law or depend on findings of fact that are 

clearly wrong in light of the evidence. Id.

ANALYSIS

[3-5] As a statutorily created court, the Workers’ 

Compensation Court is a tribunal of limited and special jurisdiction and has only such authority as has been conferred on 

it by statute. Id. Under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation 

Act, in most compensation cases, including the one before us, 

there must be at least one statutory employer and one statutory 

employee for the compensation court to acquire jurisdiction. 

Jensen v. Floair, Inc., 212 Neb. 740, 326 N.W.2d 19 (1982). 

For the purpose of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act, 

the terms “employer” and “employee” are not words of common understanding, but, rather, of statutory definition. Id. 

Because the record supports the determination that Trident 

Seafoods is not a statutory employer under § 48-106(1), the 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act does not apply and the 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court correctly concluded 

that it lacked jurisdiction.

Section 48-106(1) states that the Nebraska Workers’ 

Compensation Act applies to “every resident employer in this 

state” and the “nonresident employer performing work in this 

state who employs one or more employees in the regular trade, 

business, profession, or vocation of such employer.”

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-114(2) (Reissue 2010) defines 

“employer” to include, in relevant part, “every person, firm, 
- 49 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

HASSAN v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS

Cite as 302 Neb. 44

or corporation, including any public service corporation, who 

is engaged in any trade, occupation, business, or profession 

as described in section 48-106, and who has any person in 

service under any contract of hire, express or implied, oral 

or written.”

This statutory definition of employer found at § 48-114(2) 

by its terms incorporates § 48-106. Synthesizing these statutes, we therefore understand that to be a statutory employer 

subject to the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act, the “nonresident employer [must be] performing work in this state,” 

§ 48-106(1), and the nature of that work must be “in the regular 

trade,” § 48-106(1), of such employer. We do not believe that 

in the ordinary case, performing occasional tasks in Nebraska 

amount to a presence in Nebraska subjecting the employer to 

the coverage of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act. 

However, we do believe that the employer is subject to the 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act where workers, including support staff, are regularly performing work in Nebraska. 

See § 48-106.

As noted above, Trident Seafoods is incorporated in the 

State of Washington and is a “nonresident employer.” Given 

the facts recited above and not repeated here, the evidence 

shows that Trident Seafoods manufactures and produces seafood; was not performing such work in this state; and did 

not frequently have employees either as support personnel 

or directly engaged in Nebraska “in the regular trade, business, profession, or vocation of such employer,” § 48-106(1). 

Therefore, the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act did not 

apply to Trident Seafoods.

Hassan contends that Trident Seafoods’ recruiting activity 

subjected it to the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act. We 

do not agree. Although Hassan showed that Trident Seafoods 

sent several of its recruiters to Nebraska to host occasional 

recruiting events, its presence in the state was incidental. And 

there is no claim that Trident Seafoods was a labor broker, 

which the appellate courts of this state have recognized as an 
- 50 -

Nebraska Supreme Court Advance S

302 Nebraska Report

HASSAN v. TRIDENT SEAFOODS

Cite as 302 Neb. 44

employer under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act. 

Compare Morin v. Industrial Manpower, 13 Neb. App. 1, 687 

N.W.2d 704 (2004) (concluding that labor broker was employer 

under Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act).

The record shows that Trident Seafoods’ contacts with the 

State of Nebraska were scant as compared with the activities 

identified in § 48-106(1), which establish jurisdiction over an 

employer. For completeness, we note our analysis undertaken 

pursuant to the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act is consistent with the national trend which favors finding that state 

workers’ compensation laws primarily cover the employee in 

the location of the employment relationship rather than other 

factors. See, e.g., 13 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson’s 

Workers’ Compensation Law § 143.04[1] (2017).

Having determined that Trident Seafoods is not a statutory employer, and as a result, that the Nebraska Workers’ 

Compensation Act does not apply, we need not address 

Hassan’s other arguments, including his assertion that he is a 

covered employee under § 48-115(2). In the circumstances of 

this case, without a statutory employer, Hassan’s status as an 

employee is of no legal significance. See Jensen v. Floair, Inc., 

212 Neb. 740, 326 N.W.2d 19 (1982).

CONCLUSION

Because Trident Seafoods is a nonresident and its limited activities in Nebraska are not within the definition of 

“employer” described by the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation 

Act, the compensation court correctly determined it lacked 

jurisdiction and dismissed Hassan’s petition for injuries sustained on the job in Alaska.

Affirmed