Source: http://www.workerscompensation.com/regulations/stateitem.php?ID=8927&state=nebraska&Parent=918&title=
Timestamp: 2018-02-18 22:00:15
Document Index: 146256825

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 34', '§ 3675', '§ 3057', '§ 48', '§ 48', '§ 1', '§ 53']

48-134. Injured employee; physical examination; duty to submit.
After an employee has given notice of an injury, as provided in section 48-133, and from time to time thereafter during the continuance of his or her disability, he or she shall, if so requested by the employer or the insurance company carrying such risk, submit himself or herself to an examination by a physician or surgeon legally authorized to practice medicine under the laws of the state in which he or she practices, furnished and paid for by the employer, or the insurance company carrying such risk, as the case may be. The employee shall have the right to have a physician provided and paid for by himself or herself present at the examination. The unreasonable refusal of the employee to submit to such examination shall deprive him or her of the right to compensation under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act during the continuance of such refusal, and the period of such refusal shall be deducted from the period during which compensation would otherwise be payable.
Laws 1913, c. 198, § 34, p. 594;
R.S.1913, § 3675;
C.S.1922, § 3057;
C.S.1929, § 48-134;
R.S.1943, § 48-134;
Laws 1969, c. 395, § 1, p. 1385;
Laws 1986, LB 811, § 53.
This section places the selection of the physician solely within the employer's or insurance company's discretion, so long as the physician is legally authorized as set out in this section. Behrens v. American Stores Packing Co., 234 Neb. 25, 449 N.W.2d 197 (1989).
Inquiry respecting extent of an injury to employee should be directed to his condition at time of examination or trial. Dymak v. Haskins Bros. & Co., 132 Neb. 308, 271 N.W. 860 (1937).
Woman employee refusing to permit injection to render kidney opaque for purpose of X-ray photograph, was not thereby deprived of right to compensation. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Wickline, 103 Neb. 681, 173 N.W. 689 (1919), 103 Neb. 21, 170 N.W. 193, 6 A.L.R. 1267 (1918).
The fundamental question of the compensability of an employee's claim stands separate from whether the employee can be deprived of benefits under this section during the time of an unreasonable refusal to undergo an employer's medical examination. Hale v. Vickers, Inc., 10 Neb. App. 627, 635 N.W.2d 458 (2001).