Opinion ID: 4555607
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: analysis

Text: 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.