Opinion ID: 1735055
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: statutory principles and definitions

Text: 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. Foster v. BryanLGH Med. Ctr. East, 272 Neb. 918, 725 N.W.2d 839 (2007); Hagelstein v. Swift-Eckrich, 257 Neb. 312, 597 N.W.2d 394 (1999). In reviewing a judgment of that court, we are likewise constrained by the definitions and concepts of liability which the Legislature has articulated in the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. We therefore begin with the statutory principles and definitions applicable to this case. The basic principle of workers' compensation is stated in § 48-101: When personal injury is caused to an employee by accident or occupational disease, arising out of and in the course of his or her employment, such employee shall receive compensation therefor from his or her employer if the employee was not willfully negligent at the time of receiving such injury. Key terms used in this principle are specifically defined by the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. Accident means an unexpected or unforeseen injury happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury. § 48-151(2). Occupational disease means only a disease which is due to causes and conditions which are characteristic of and peculiar to a particular trade . . . and excludes all ordinary diseases of life to which the general public is exposed. § 48-151(3). Injury and personal injuries mean only violence to the physical structure of the body and such disease or infection as naturally results therefrom. The terms include disablement resulting from occupational disease arising out of and in the course of the employment in which the employee was engaged and which was contracted in such employment. § 48-151(4). The fact that suicide is alleged as the immediate cause of Zach's death does not bar the claim because it is also alleged that Zach experienced physical changes in his brain which overrode his will to the extent that even knowledge of the consequences of the act of suicide did not prevent it. See Friedeman v. State, 215 Neb. 413, 339 N.W.2d 67 (1983). The critical query is whether such changes and the resulting fatal consequence can constitute a compensable injury under either an accident or an occupational disease theory, in view of the allegation that they were caused by a mental stimulus, i.e., being advised of the consequences of a work-related error.