Opinion ID: 1296076
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: bilateral shoulder injuries

Text: After noting what he perceived as a conflict in the medical evidence on the issue of whether the degenerative condition of Swoboda's shoulders was caused by the heavy overhead work required by his employment with Volkman Plumbing, the trial judge stated: The Court has reviewed in detail the medical evidence concerning causation, and the Court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that [Swoboda] has failed to prove that he sustained an accident and injury as defined by § 48-151(2) to his left and right shoulders and arms that arose out of and in the course and scope of his employment on September 6, 2001. Specifically, the Court finds that [ Swoboda ] failed to prove an accident that happened suddenly and violently producing at the time objective symptoms. (Emphasis supplied.) The review panel noted that the conflict in medical evidence served as at least one basis for [the trial judge's] rejecting [Swoboda's] claim and concluded that the finding by the trial judge was clearly erroneous because the opinions of both Dr. Wampler and Dr. Schwab are uniform as to the cause of [Swoboda's] shoulder injuries. In assigning error to this determination, Volkman does not contend that the medical opinions were in conflict, but, rather, argues that this issue was not a basis for the trial court's determination that the injuries were not compensable. Volkman contends that the trial court's determination was based solely upon its finding that Swoboda failed to show he met the suddenly and violently element of a repetitive trauma claim. While we agree with the review panel that the medical causation evidence is not in conflict, we also agree with Volkman that the conflict perceived by the trial judge was not the basis for denial of Swoboda's claim. As we read the award, compensation was denied because the trial judge specifically found that Swoboda did not prove an accident which happened suddenly and violently and produced objective symptoms. We therefore accept Volkman's argument that this is the sole dispositive issue as to whether Swoboda is entitled to workers' compensation for his shoulder injuries. For purposes of workers' compensation, repetitive trauma injuries are tested under the statutory definition of accident, as opposed to occupational disease. See Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (2003) (citing cases). 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. Neb.Rev.Stat. § 48-151(2) (Cum.Supp.2002). Three elements must be demonstrated in order to prove that a workers' compensation 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. Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, supra . Only the second of these elements is at issue in this case. In considering the suddenly and violently element of accidental injury in the context of repetitive trauma injuries, we have recognized that given the nature of the human body, not all injuries are caused instantaneously and with force, but may nevertheless be sudden and violent, even though they have been building up for a considerable period of time and do not manifest themselves until they cause the employee to be unable to continue his or her employment. Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, supra ; Sandel v. Packaging Co. of America, 211 Neb. 149, 317 N.W.2d 910 (1982). Thus, for purposes of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, suddenly and violently does not mean instantaneously and with force, but, rather, the element is satisfied if the injury occurs at an identifiable point in time requiring the employee to discontinue employment and seek medical treatment. Jordan v. Morrill County, 258 Neb. 380, 603 N.W.2d 411 (1999); Frank v. A & L Insulation, 256 Neb. 898, 594 N.W.2d 586 (1999). 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.' (Emphasis omitted.) Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. at 556, 667 N.W.2d at 193; Sandel v. Packaging Co. of America, supra . This disjunctive test is consistent with general principles of workers' compensation. In his treatise, Professor Larson explains the concept of time-definiteness with respect to an accidental injury as applying to either the cause or the result. 3 Arthur Larson & Lex K. Larson, Larson's Workers' Compensation Law § 50.01 at 50.02 (2000). Professor Larson states that the necessary suddenness of the accident may be found either in a sudden cause, such as a relatively brief exposure to toxic fumes, or in a sudden result, such as a sudden collapse on a particular day after repeated exposure to a work trauma. Id. Understood in this light, our test allows the requisite suddenness to be found if either the cause of an accident is sudden, i.e., occurring within a reasonably limited time, or if the effect or result of the accident is sudden, i.e., occurring at an identifiable point in time. Volkman argues on appeal that Swoboda failed to meet either of these tests and thus did not prove an accident occurring suddenly and violently. Volkman reads Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (2003), to require that the identifiable point in time at which the result of an accident materializes must occur during working hours in order for there to be a compensable accidental injury. It argues that as to Swoboda's left shoulder injury, [t]here was never any work event requiring him to miss work and seek treatment. Rather, he suffered the disabling left shoulder symptoms during the fishing trip.... Brief for appellants at 20. With respect to Swoboda's right shoulder, Volkman argues that there was never a point where his injury manifested at work and prevented him from doing work activities. This argument reads too much into Dawes. In that opinion, we simply stated that Dawes seriously injured his back in October 1999 and stopped work to seek medical treatment. Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. at 531, 667 N.W.2d at 177. Dawes does not hold that the identifiable point in time at which the injurious result of repetitive trauma materializes must fall within the employee's working hours in order to be compensable, and we decline to impose such a requirement here. There is no logical reason to condition compensability upon the worker being on the clock at the identifiable point in time when an injury resulting from work-related trauma materializes. Thus, the fact that Swoboda's shoulder injury materialized at a point in time when he was engaged in recreational activities unrelated to his work does not in and of itself defeat his claim for compensation. The record reflects that Swoboda sought medical treatment for his left shoulder as soon as he returned from the fishing trip. Volkman also argues that because Swoboda did not stop work and seek medical treatment for his right shoulder, the injury was not compensable. In Jordan v. Morrill County, 258 Neb. 380, 603 N.W.2d 411 (1999), an employee undergoing a functional capacity evaluation for an unrelated injury mentioned to his physician that he was experiencing problems with his right shoulder. We found this sufficient to meet the requirement that an employee seek medical treatment for the condition for which he seeks compensation. Thus, although Swoboda did not initially make an appointment with his doctor in connection with his right shoulder injury, the record reflects that he sought medical treatment for that injury as well as the injury to his left shoulder. Within a short time thereafter, he discontinued his employment. For these reasons, we agree with the review panel that the record conclusively establishes that Swoboda's bilateral shoulder injuries, which were the result of repetitive work-related trauma, materialized at an identifiable point after which he sought medical treatment and discontinued his employment. Because this satisfies the disjunctive test for whether accidental injury occurs suddenly and violently, we need not consider whether the cause of such injuries is reasonably limited in time. See Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, supra .