Opinion ID: 2010102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: order nunc pro tunc

Text: On March 23, 2000, the trial judge entered its award in favor of Green. The award did not address the issue of future medical care. On April 3, in response to a motion filed by Green, the trial judge issued an order nunc pro tunc modifying the award which stated, [Green] will require additional medical care and treatment for which [DMI] is liable. The review panel affirmed the entire award, including the order nunc pro tunc. The Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the award ordering DMI to reimburse Green for past and future medical bills as vague and overbroad, but it did not address whether the compensation court had the statutory authority to enter the order nunc pro tunc. The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court, as a statutory tribunal, is a court of limited and special jurisdiction and possesses only such authority as is delineated by statute. See Crabb v. Bishop Clarkson Mem. Hosp., 256 Neb. 636, 591 N.W.2d 756 (1999). The only Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act provisions that permit a judge to modify or change previously issued orders are Neb.Rev.Stat. §§ 48-141 and 48-180 (Reissue 1998). Sheldon-Zimbelman v. Bryan Memorial Hosp., 258 Neb. 568, 604 N.W.2d 396 (2000). Section 48-141 allows an award to be modified because of an increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury. Since the order nunc pro tunc in the case at hand is not related to an increase or decrease in Green's incapacity, we look to § 48-180. Section 48-180 provides that the compensation court may, on its own motion, modify or change its findings, order, award, or judgment at any time before appeal and within ten days from the date of such findings, order, award, or judgment for the purpose of correcting any ambiguity, clerical error, or patent or obvious error. Section 48-180 is the statutory embodiment of nunc pro tunc principles. Fay v. Dowding, Dowding, supra . The office of an order nunc pro tunc is to correct a record which has been made so that it truly records the actions had, which, through inadvertence or mistake, were not truly recorded. Id., citing Interstate Printing Co. v. Department of Revenue, 236 Neb. 110, 459 N.W.2d 519 (1990). However it is not the function of an order nunc pro tunc to `change or revise a judgment or order, or to set aside a judgment actually rendered, or to render an order different from the one actually rendered, even though such order was not the order intended.' 261 Neb. at 226, 623 N.W.2d at 295, quoting Interstate Printing Co. v. Department of Revenue, supra . Green would have us believe that the trial judge's statement in the award that Green was entitled to payment of medical expenses incurred as a result of the accident and the judge's statement during trial that ongoing medical benefits will not be awarded if they are not necessitated by the accident and injury indicated that the judge intended to award Green future medical expenses and that it was merely a clerical error for the judge not to clearly include it. In Thornton v. Grand Island Contract Carriers, 262 Neb. 740, 634 N.W.2d 794 (2001), we held that if future medical expenses are not part of a final award, the judgment is final, and any future claims for medical expenses related to the same accident are absolutely barred unless the requirements of § 48-141 are met. Since the award in that case contained no language that could be reasonably construed to provide for future medical benefits, the plaintiff's claim was barred by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-140 (Reissue 1998). An order nunc pro tunc may be supported by the judge's notes, court files, other entries of record, or other evidence, oral or written, which is sufficient to establish that the order is required to make the record reflect the truth. See Continental Oil Co. v. Harris, 214 Neb. 422, 333 N.W.2d 921 (1983). In this case, however, the order did not make the record reflect what was actually decided, because nothing in the language of the award indicates that the trial judge intended to grant Green future medical benefits. Additionally, § 48-141 is not applicable. Thus, we determine that the trial judge erred in modifying the award through the order nunc pro tunc which allowed Green to recover future medical payments. We accordingly affirm, as a matter of law pursuant to Thornton v. Grand Island Contract Carriers, supra , the decision of the Court of Appeals reversing and vacating the compensation court's award of future medical benefits.