Court Opinion

ID: 9662274
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:04:36.523423+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:38.298433
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
concurring in part, and in part dissenting.
I agree with the majority opinion. I write only to address the limited issue as to whether, under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-125 (Supp. 1983), the appellant is not entitled to an attorney fee in this court for services rendered in opposition to the cross-appeal.
The language of the statute applicable here is as follows:
If the employer files an application for a rehearing before the compensation court from an award of a judge of the compensation court and fails to obtain any reduction in the amount of such award, the compensation court shall allow the employee a reasonable attorney’s fee to be taxed as costs against the employer for such rehearing, and the Supreme Court shall in like manner allow the employee a reasonable sum as attorney’s fees for the proceedings in that court.
Prior to 1975 Neb. Laws, L.B. 187, the review by this court in Workmen’s Compensation Court cases was de novo upon the record, with this court coming to an independent conclusion. Thus, regardless of which party appealed, the effect was that the issue of whether the employee had sustained his burden was before us.
We now review only for errors assigned. In this case the appellant employee did not seek to increase the award. His assigned errors related to other matters. It was the employer and its insurer, by cross-appeal, who raised the issue of the propriety of the award. The employer and its insurer did not prevail. The statutory precondition having been satisfied, I would award the appellant’s (employee’s) attorney $750 in this court for services in resisting the cross-appeal.
Shanahan, J., joins in this concurrence and dissent.