Opinion ID: 2222251
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: analysis of repetitive trauma injuries

Text: Both Dawes and Wittrock urge this court to overrule precedent and hold that repetitive trauma injuries are not accidents, but occupational diseases. We have held that while such cases have some characteristics of both accidental injury and occupational disease, the compensability of a condition resulting from the cumulative effects of work-related trauma is to be tested under the statutory definition of accident. See, e.g., Vonderschmidt v. Sur-Gro, 262 Neb. 551, 635 N.W.2d 405 (2001); Fay v. Dowding, Dowding, 261 Neb. 216, 623 N.W.2d 287 (2001); Owen v. American Hydraulics, 258 Neb. 881, 606 N.W.2d 470 (2000); 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); Schlup v. Auburn Needleworks, 239 Neb. 854, 479 N.W.2d 440 (1992); Vencil v. Valmont Indus., 239 Neb. 31, 473 N.W.2d 409 (1991), disapproved, Jordan, supra ; Maxson v. Michael Todd & Co., 238 Neb. 209, 469 N.W.2d 542 (1991), disapproved, Jordan, supra ; Crosby v. American Stores, 207 Neb. 251, 298 N.W.2d 157 (1980). See, also, Morris v. Nebraska Health System, 266 Neb. 285, 664 N.W.2d 436 (2003) (distinguishing between repetitive trauma cases and occupational disease cases). The parties ask that this authority be overruled, albeit with substantially different motives. Dawes seeks to connect his 1996 injury to his 1999 injury as part of one occupational disease, so that both the 1996 injury and 1999 injury are compensable. In an occupational disease context, the date of injury, for purposes of § 48-137, is that date upon which the accumulated effects of the disease manifest themselves to the point the injured worker is no longer able to render further service. See Morris, supra . Wittrock, on the other hand, argues that repetitive trauma should be treated as an occupational disease and that Dawes did not prove an occupational disease; thus, Dawes is entitled to no compensation for either injury. We decline the parties' invitation to overrule our precedent. As previously noted, it has been the law for many years that repetitive trauma injuries are tested under the definition of accident, as opposed to occupational disease. We reaffirmed this rule, very recently, in Morris, supra . Furthermore, four justices of this court invited the Legislature to consider this issue over a decade ago. See Vencil, supra (Caporale, J., concurring, joined by Boslaugh, White, and Fahrnbruch, JJ.). When judicial interpretation of a statute has not evoked a legislative amendment, it is presumed that the Legislature has acquiesced in the court's interpretation. Sheldon-Zimbelman v. Bryan Memorial Hosp., 258 Neb. 568, 604 N.W.2d 396 (2000). The Legislature has not only acquiesced in our interpretation of Neb. Rev.Stat. § 48-151 (Supp.1999) regarding repetitive trauma injuries, but has declined the express invitation of a majority of this court to consider and amend our interpretation. The doctrine of stare decisis is grounded on public policy and, as such, is entitled to great weight and must be adhered to unless the reasons therefor have ceased to exist, are clearly erroneous, or are manifestly wrong and mischievous or unless more harm than good will result from doing so. State v. Reeves, 258 Neb. 511, 604 N.W.2d 151 (2000). The parties in this case have provided no reason compelling enough to justify departure from our prior cases. Therefore, Dawes' first assignment of error is without merit.