Court Opinion

ID: 9728258
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:03:18.881334+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:47.213711
License: Public Domain

Spencer, J.
This action arises under the provisions of the Nebraska Workmen's Compensation Act. It is here for trial de novo.
The case was tried before one of the judges of the Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Court who rendered an award finding plaintiff sustained a compensable injury and that she was temporarily totally disabled for a period of 2 weeks. Compensation was allowed for 1 week, in the amount of $42, together with medical expenses of $18, $21 as a penalty on the award, and $100 attorney’s fees. The defendant-employer appealed directly to the district court where the award was sustained but the* penalty and attorney’s fees were disallowed. Plaintiff perfected an appeal to this court.
The injury occurred on August 20, 1967, but was not reported by the defendant to his compensation carrier until after a petition was filed in the compensation court. The defendant was billed for medical services rendered in the amount of $18. On February 6, 1968, the treating physician advised plaintiff that the defendant had ignored his two requests for payment, and requested: payment from the plaintiff. Plaintiff consulted an attorney who on February 22, 1968, 6 months after the injury, made a written demand on the defendant for *438payment of the medical bill and for $42 for 1-week’s compensation. Defendant paid the medical bill but ignored the claim for compensation. Plaintiff filed her petition in the compensation court on May 22, 1968, 3 months after her counsel had made written demand on the defendant for payment. Defendant filed a first report of the injury with his compensation carrier June 7, 1968. This report listed plaintiff’s length of disability at 2 weeks. The compensation court so found and assessed a penalty pursuant to section 48-125, R. R. S. 1943. The district court sustained the award but erroneously disallowed the penalty. We sustain the assessment of the penalty and the allowance of attorney’s fees.
Section 48-125, R. R. S. 1943, provides as follows: “Except as hereinafter provided, all amounts . of compensation payable under the provisions of this act shall be payable periodically in accordance with the methods of payment of wages of the employee at the time of the injury or death; Provided, fifty per cent shall be added for waiting time for all delinquent payments after thirty days’ notice has been given of disability. Whenever the employer refuses payment, or when the employer neglects to pay compensation for thirty days after injury, and proceedings are held before the compensation court, a reasonable attorney’s fee shall be allowed the employee by the court. In the event the employer appeals to the district court from the award of the compensation court, or any judge thereof, and fails to obtain any reduction in the amount of such award, the district court may allow the employee’ a reasonable attorney’s fee to- be taxed as costs against the employer, and the Supreme Court shall in like manner allow the employee a reasonable sum as attorney’s fees for the proceedings in that court.”
The plaintiff’s claim was not disputed in the compensation court. On appeal from the award defendant raised a question as to the extent of plaintiff’s disability. As we view the record, there was no reasonable con*439troversy until defendant’s compensation carrier attempted to raise one on a technicality after the award in the compensation court. It would be a travesty on justice to conclude that defendant in good faith pursued his remedy with proper diligence, as argued in his brief. He is confusing his action with that of his compensation carrier after plaintiff filed her petition. The waiting time in section 48-125, R. R. S. 1943, begins to run when the employer receives notice of the disability, not when notice is given to the compensation carrier.
There has never been any issue herein other than plaintiff’s claim for 1-week’s compensation and payment of medical services. Defendant paid plaintiff’s medical bill sometime after the letter of February 22, 1968, and not only ignored her claim for compensation but failed! to report the accident and claim to his compensation carrier until 16 days after plaintiff filed her petition in the compensation court. This was more than 9 months after the accident and more than 3 months after plaintiff’s attorney had made a demand for payment. Defendant, in his report to his carrier on June 7, 1968, stated that plaintiff’s probable length of disability was 2 weeks.
The Workmen’s Compensation Act is remedial in nature and its purpose is to do justice to workmen without expensive litigation and unnecessary delay. Hanley v. Union Stock Yards Co., 100 Neb. 232, 158 N. W. 939.
This was a minimal claim, the payment of which defendant sought to avoid by ignoring it. Obviously, section 48-125, R. R. S. 1943, is particularly pertinent to the facts herein. The allowance of the penalty and an attorney’s fee were proper.
For the reasons given, the judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the district court for the entry of a judgment in conformity with this opinion. Plaintiff is allowed $350 for attorney’s fees in this court.
Reversed and remanded.