Court Opinion

ID: 9670018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:12:36.547287+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:01.818309
License: Public Domain

Miller-Lerman, J.,
concurring.
I concur and write separately to address the formula stated in Jordan v. Morrill County, 258 Neb. 380, 603 N.W.2d 411 (1999). The instant case was tried as an “accident,” see Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-151(2) (Reissue 1998), and the single judge of the Workers’ Compensation Court found that an accident and injury had occurred on November 29, 1996. The elements of an accident are “an unexpected or unforeseen injury happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the same time objective symptoms of an injury.” Id. At issue in this case is whether an accident had occurred “suddenly and violently” and whether the facts amounting to “suddenly and violently” had been proved by Vonderschmidt, such that the finding by the single judge was not clearly erroneous. See Guico v. Excel Corp., 260 Neb. 712, 619 N.W.2d 470 (2000).
In order for an accident to have occurred “suddenly and violently,” the following facts must be demonstrated: (1) The worker must have sustained an injury at an identifiable point in time arising out of and in the course of his or her employment, (2) the worker must have discontinued employment because of the injury, and (3) the worker must seek medical treatment because of the injury. See Jordan v. Morrill County, supra.
Although there are other fact patterns which could meet the definition of “suddenly and violently,” evidence of the foregoing facts will ordinarily meet the definition of “suddenly and violently.” Although the foregoing set of facts requires that the worker cease working, no set amount of time from work must be missed. Although the discontinuance of work may be for the *562purpose of seeking medical treatment due to an injury, which discontinuance would satisfy the foregoing set of facts, the discontinuance of work due to an injury need not be for the particular purpose of seeking medical treatment.
I agree with the majority that the finding by the single judge of an accident is not clearly erroneous. Therefore, the affirmance of the single judge’s decision by the review panel should have been affirmed, rather than reversed, by the Nebraska Court of Appeals.