Court Opinion

ID: 9728259
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:03:18.886766+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.215059
License: Public Domain

Carter, J.,
dissenting.
This case originated in the Nebraska Workmen’s Com*440pensation Court which, after a hearing before a single judge, entered an award for disability in the amount of $42, with a penalty for delay of 50 percent, and an attorney’s fee of $100. An appeal was taken to the district court. On a trial de novo, the district court, after a hearing, entered an award for 1 week’s- disability without penalty or an attorney’s fee. The plaintiff appealed to this court.
On September 18, 1968, a trial of the case was- had. The court’s journal for said date shows: “Now, on this day, this matter came on for trial, the parties hereto appearing by their respective counsel. Plaintiff produced evidence. Defendant produced evidence. Parties rested. Summations made. Matter taken under advisement.” On October 18, 1968, the decree heretofore mentioned was entered.
I am in complete agreement with the trial court’s holding that plaintiff was disabled for 2 weeks as the result of an accident arising out of and in the course of the employment. The employer admits this fact in his pleadings. The only issue is whether or not there was a delay in the payment of compensation that warranted the assessment of a penalty under the provisions of section 48-125, R. R. S. 1943. This in turn requires- a determination of whether or not the delay was the result of a reasonable controversy. If it was, and this is the sole and only issue, the employer is not subject to penalty. The trial court determined after a trial that a penalty could not properly be assessed. Wheeler v. Northwestern Metal Co., 175 Neb. 841, 124 N. W. 2d 377; Hiestand v. Ristau, 135 Neb. 881, 284 N. W. 756.
A purported bill of exceptions was filed in this court. It consists solely of eight exhibits. The certificate of the court shows that the presence of a court reporter was mutually waived and that there was no stenographic report of the trial. There is no certificate by the judge or court reporter that the bill o-f exceptions contains all the evidence introduced and considered by the court. *441It is a partial bill of exceptions not in accordance with Rule 7c, of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1967. We are required to take notice of the fact that there was no proper bill of exceptions filed in a case before us. Bryant v. Greene, 163 Neb. 497, 80 N. W. 2d 137.
“It was many years ago determined, has since been frequently repeated, and quite recently reiterated that a bill of exceptions in a case tried in the district court must be authenticated by the certificate of the clerk of such court to entitle it to be considered in the Supreme Court. If a purported bill of exceptions has not been so authenticated, its contents will not be examined or considered by this court for any purpose. * * * The practice is firmly established and has been consistently adhered to that this court will on its own motion refuse to consider a document appearing in the record and purporting to be a bill of exceptions when not authenticated as such by the certificate of the clerk of the district court. * * * In the absence of a bill of exceptions, no question will be considered, a determination of which requires an examination of the evidence produced in the trial court. It follows that any assignment of error that requires an examination of evidence cannot prevail on appeal in the absence of a bill of exceptions.” Wabel v. Ross, 153 Neb. 236, 44 N. W. 2d 312.
In In re Estate of Jurgensmeier, 142 Neb. 188, 5 N. W. 2d 233, we said: “Two sufficient reasons require us to sustain the action of the district court: First, the district court journal recording the action on this special appearance recites that ‘hearing is had, evidence taken.’ This evidence not being perpetuated and incorporated in the bill of exceptions allowed in this case, we are compelled to assume that the judgment entered by the district court was in accord with the proof.”
In Hilligas v. Farr, 171 Neb. 105, 105 N. W. 2d 578, we said: “The exaction of the law that the record of the evidence must be presented when questions of fact *442are, to be determined on appeal means that the entire record of the evidence shall be presented.”
I submit that under the foregoing holdings a judgment of the district court is presumptively correct in this court when there is no bill of exceptions containing all the evidence, except when a partial bill is agreed upon in accordance with Rule 7c, of the Revised Rules of the Supreme Court, 1967.
Even if the exhibits contained in the purported bill of exceptions could be considered by this court, there is nothing in them that sustains a reversal in this case. The defendant below admitted disability for 2 weeks and liability for the payment of compensation for 1 week. Defendant below denied that he was subject to a penalty for delay under the compensation act. This was the issue before the court. The presumption is that the evidence adduced sustains the findings of the trial court. While the briefs indicate a delay of more than 30 days in the payment of compensation, the exhibits do not show that there was no reasonable controversy which is a condition precedent to the assessment of a delay penalty.
The exhibits consist of the report of the employer, the reports of the attending physician, and correspondence between counsel. That the claim was not paid within 30 days is not disputed. But this is not the issue. The issue is whether or not there was a reasonable controversy as to' the liability or the amount due.
I submit that there was a basis for controversy over this claim. Plaintiff’s physician in a letter to plaintiff’s attorney under date of September 16, 1968, stated: “Because of the nature of Mrs. Gill’s work, that is a fry cook, it would seem reasonable to me that a total disability of two weeks on this injury would be anticipated. I routinely advise patients with similar injuries to keep the affected part dry until it is well healed, and in Mrs. Gill’s case this would have been necessary for approximately one week after I dismissed her from *443treatment.” Since the first week of disability of short duration is not compensable for time lost, a difference of opinion could well arise as to the amount, if any, the, employer was required to pay. The demand of plaintiff’s attorney for the $42 was accompanied by a further demand for a $50 attorney’s fee which was not due and owing under the compensation law at that time. There simply is no evidence in this record establishing that the delay was allowable under the compensation act. It is by surmise and conjecture that we penalize the employer. It is fundamental that where the record contains no authentic bill of exceptions, or the bill of exceptions has been quashed, no question will be considered on appeal the determination of which necessarily involves. examination of evidence adduced in trial court, and in such a situation, if the pleadings are sufficient to support the judgment, it will be affirmed. Blanco v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 180 Neb. 365, 143 N. W. 2d 257. The same rule applies to an improperly authenticated partial bill of exceptions. But what is more important still, we are reversing the judgment of a trial judge without the evidence before us that he had before him and on which his judgment was based. I would affirm the judgment.