Court Opinion

ID: 9716890
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:53:23.215182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:49.803162
License: Public Domain

Carlson, Judge,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I agree with the majority that the trial court erred in finding that Lucas’ accident and injuries arose out of and in the course of his employment. Therefore, I would also affirm the decision of the review panel finding that there was no evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Lucas’ fall was compensable and dismissing Lucas’ appeal.
As to the cross-appeal, High and the State contend that High, as conservator-trustee of the Trust Fund, is not a proper party to this action and that instead, the Trust Fund itself is the proper third party. High and the State argue that the review panel erred in finding that this issue was moot and that “Judge High still has an interest in the outcome of the litigation should it ultimately be held that Lucas deserves compensation for his injuries.” Brief for third-party defendants and appellees on cross-appeal at 14. Based on our conclusion that Lucas is not entitled to an award, I feel it is not necessary to resolve the issue of whether High was properly named as a party. An appellate court is not obligated to engage in an analysis which is not needed to adjudicate the case and controversy before it. Mabile v. Drivers Mgmt., Inc., 11 Neb. App. 765, 660 N.W.2d 537 (2003).