Opinion ID: 1284637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 22

Heading: our decision in risor i is the law of the case regarding twin city's intervention

Text: [45] Nebraska Boiler argues that the review panel incorrectly determined that this court had addressed its arguments in Risor I regarding Twin City's right to participate in these proceedings. In Risor I, we held that an employer's insurer is not a necessary party in a workers' compensation action brought solely against the employer and that the workers' compensation statutes did not authorize postjudgment intervention. And we rejected Twin City's due process arguments that it was entitled to notice and representation. We declined, however, to decide whether the incorrect date of injury alleged in Risor's pleading presented a due process problem for Nebraska Boiler. We concluded that whether Nebraska Boiler had been denied due process by the alleged deficiency was a subject for the substantive appeal. We stated that Twin City was free to represent Nebraska Boiler on this issue in the substantive appeal but held that it had failed to present a reason for intervention. [46] Therefore, the only issue Risor I left open for the substantive appeal was whether the date of injury alleged in Risor's pleading presented a due process violation to Nebraska Boiler. Under the law-of-the-case doctrine, an appellate court's holdings on issues presented to it conclusively settle all matters ruled upon, either expressly or by necessary implication. [89] Nebraska Boiler has not specifically argued it was denied due process. But we have determined that it was not prejudiced by the date of injury pleaded because it had sufficient notice that Risor would seek to prove October 19, 1993, was the date of injury. Thus, the only remaining issue from Risor I is resolved against Nebraska Boiler.