Opinion ID: 1284637
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 15

Heading: Evidence Sufficiently Supports Date of Injury

Text: [18, 19] The date of an accident resulting in a compensable injury presents a question of fact, which the trial judge resolves. [60] To recover under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, a claimant must prove by a preponderance of the evidence that an accident or occupational disease arising out of and occurring in the course of employment proximately caused an injury which resulted in disability compensable under the act. [61] [20-22] When testing the trial judge's findings of fact, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to the successful party. We give the successful party the benefit of every inference reasonably deducible from the evidence. [62] As the trier of fact, the trial judge determines the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to give their testimony. [63] And when a witness makes contradictory statements, the resolution of that contradiction presents a question of fact. [64] [23] We recognize that Risor initially stated that he had not missed work to attend the 1993 referred medical examination. Yet, in context with Risor's other statements, the trial judge could have reasonably concluded that Risor meant he had not lost wages over the appointment. And Risor's testimony on cross-examination showed that he could not have attended the appointment in the half-hour time that Nebraska Boiler allotted him for his lunch break. The trial judge was not clearly wrong in this factual finding.