Opinion ID: 1835416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: rehearing in workers' compensation court

Text: Evidence. In her testimony at the rehearing in the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court, Sherard described her vocational background before the injuries at Bethphage and her physical difficulties after the accident in 1986. Sherard was trained, and obtained state certification, as an emergency medical technician and has served on the staff of an intermediate care facility for mentally disabled persons. Most of Sherard's work history has involved totally physical work, such as manually lifting disabled people. However, after the 1986 accident, she experienced almost constant back pain, which was exacerbated by everyday physical exertion, and was unable to do any task which required bending, stopping, lifting, or standing for any protracted period. Several orthopedists testified concerning Sherard's physical limitations after the 1986 accident and expressed their opinions on her disability on account of the 1986 injury. Sherard was markedly limited in her ability to move and was unable to lift over 25 pounds. Sherard exhibited considerable limitation in the range of motion of her back, demonstrated limited flexion and extension in her extremely stiff back, and was unable to return to gainful employment. One orthopedist testified: I don't think [Sherard is] capable of any kind of work.... [H]er back hurt. It bothered her when she'd walk, it bothered her when she'd sit. I doubt if she'd be very good employment for anyone. Kincaid, the rehabilitation specialist, testified that, based on Sherard's medical history, which included Dr. Goetowski's 1984 evaluation that Sherard had permanent partial disability of 50 percent to the body as a whole, Sherard had an 80-percent vocational disability and permanent loss of earning capacity in 1984 due to the very severe restrictions imposed by Dr. Goetowski, such as Sherard's wearing a back brace during ordinary physical activities. These medical restrictions hindered Sherard's obtaining employment. During cross-examination of Kincaid, the following occurred: [Bethphage's lawyer:] And based upon the medical records that you reviewed and your interviews with Mrs. Sherard and your skill, training, education and experience, do you have an opinion as to whether her accident of January of 1986 resulted in additional permanent loss of earning capacity above that which existed on February 27th of 1984? [Kincaid:] Yes. [Fund's lawyer:] I'm going to object, no sufficient foundation.... After the court overruled the Fund's objection, Kincaid answered: I felt at that time that she had an additional 15 percent vocational disability as a result of ... this injury of [January] `86. Later during Kincaid's cross-examination, Bethphage's lawyer asked: [D]o you have an opinion as to whether the combined losses of earning capacity present before January of 1986 and the additional loss of earning capacity resulting from the accident of January of 1986 is greater than what would have resulted from the accident of January 1986 considered alone? The Fund's lawyer interjected: Again, I'll object, no sufficient foundation. When the court overruled the preceding objection, Kincaid responded that Sherard's January 1986 accident at Bethphage resulted in an additional 15-percent permanent loss of earning capacity or vocational disability above Sherard's 80-percent permanent loss of earning capacity which existed in 1984, a combination of disabilities which rendered Sherard unemployable. Dr. Matthews, responding to the question whether the combined effect of Mrs. Sherard's disability which preexisted August of 1985 and the disability which resulted from the accident of January of 1986... was substantially greater than what resulted from the injury of January of 1986 considered alone and of itself and without the presence of the preexisting disabilities, answered, [Y]es. Findings by Workers' Compensation Court. The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court found that before Sherard's injuries at Bethphage, she was suffering a preexisting disability greater than 25 percent and that Bethphage had written notice of Sherard's preexisting condition, but retained her in its employ. The court's majority found that the accident of January 13, 1986 standing alone and of itself would have produced a 15% permanent partial disability to [Sherard's] body as a whole. Based on Bethphage's liability for 15 percent of Sherard's permanent partial disability, the court's majority then allocated liability for payment of weekly compensation benefits to Sherard, including the Fund's liability for 85 percent of the benefits for Sherard's permanent partial disability and benefits for total disability so long in the future as Sherard remains totally disabled. The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court made no reference to vocational rehabilitation for Sherard.