Opinion ID: 2620623
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Amount of Setoff

Text: Union Pacific contends that in denying its request for a setoff of the writeoff amount, Union Pacific was denied the benefit of its bargain under the collective bargaining agreement and Strasburg was granted a windfall. Strasburg disagrees and argues that Union Pacific is entitled to set off only those funds which it paid to settle his medical bills. Resolution of this issue is a legal question involving the interpretation of 45 U.S.C. § 55, namely whether the writeoff amount is “any sum . . . contributed or paid to any insurance, relief benefit, or indemnity that may have been paid to the injured employee.” 6 See Folkestad v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 813 F.2d 1377 (9th Cir. 1987). 7 See id. 8 Blake v. Delaware and Hudson Railway Company, 484 F.2d 204, 207 (2d Cir. 1973) (Friendly, J., concurring). See Folkestad v. Burlington Northern, Inc., supra note 6. Nebraska Advance Sheets 750 286 NEBRASKA REPORTS [6] Absent anything to the contrary, an appellate court will give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning.9 And the plain meaning of the language used by Congress when drafting 45 U.S.C. § 55 was that an employer may set off any sum paid or contributed. Union Pacific did pay certain funds on Strasburg’s behalf and is undisputedly entitled to a setoff of $139,845.03 for that payment. But it did not pay or contribute the writeoff amount, and it is not entitled to set off such amount under the plain language of 45 U.S.C. § 55. Nor are we convinced by Union Pacific’s argument that Strasburg received a windfall where the jury awarded the medical expenses as billed, when in fact Strasburg paid none of those expenses. The jury’s verdict was a general one, and thus it is not possible to know what amount was actually awarded to Strasburg for his medical expenses. Moreover, Union Pacific did not object to exhibit 27, the exhibit which listed all of Strasburg’s medical expenses, and in fact, Union Pacific stipulated to its admission. Union Pacific did not offer any other evidence contradicting the impression left by exhibit 27 that the medical expenses in that exhibit were actually incurred in full by Strasburg. The plain language of 45 U.S.C. § 55 does not provide for a setoff of the insurance writeoff amount. And the record shows that Union Pacific failed to take actions that might have prevented the award of medical expenses which Union Pacific claims the jury made and with which Union Pacific now takes issue. On these facts, the statute does not require, and equity does not demand, that Union Pacific’s request be granted. As such, we conclude that the district court did not err in denying Union Pacific’s request for setoff of that amount. Union Pacific’s first assignment of error is without merit.