Opinion ID: 1284637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: date of injury for repetitive trauma injuries

Text: Nebraska Boiler contends that even if Risor's hearing was an accident under the workers' compensation statute, the review panel erred in affirming the trial judge's finding that the date of injury was October 19, 1993. [13] The Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act defines an accident as an unexpected or unforeseen injury happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury. [52] Under § 48-151(2), an injured worker must satisfy three elements to prove an injury is the result of an accident: (1) The injury must be unexpected or unforeseen, (2) the accident must happen suddenly and violently, and (3) the accident must produce at the time objective symptoms of injury. [53] We have already addressed Nebraska Boiler's argument regarding an unexpected or unforeseen injury, and it does not argue that Risor failed to show objective symptoms of injury. Therefore, we focus on the second element. [14, 15] Under § 48-151(2), suddenly and violently does not mean instantaneously and with force; instead, the element is satisfied if the injury occurs at an identifiable point in time, requiring the employee to discontinue employment and seek medical treatment. [54] The time of an accident is sufficiently definite if either the cause is reasonably limited in time or the result materializes at an identifiable point. [55] [16, 17] An employee establishes an identifiable point in time when a repetitive trauma injury occurs if the employee stops work and seeks medical treatment. [56] The law does not establish a minimum time that an employee must discontinue work for medical treatment to be eligible for benefits. [57] The length of time is not the controlling factor. [58] Nebraska Boiler does not dispute these rules. Instead, it contends that Risor failed to produce substantial evidence that he missed work on October 19, 1993, to seek medical treatment. [59] It contends that he contradicted himself on whether he had missed work. Alternatively, it argues that Risor's injury occurred sometime in the 1980's, when Nebraska Boiler accommodated him at work for his hearing loss or when he first had his hearing tested in 1988. Finally, it argues that the 1993 date could not be the date of injury because Risor failed to plead this date in his complaint as a possible date of injury.