Court Opinion

ID: 9742003
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:05:12.767639+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:27.732355
License: Public Domain

Clinton, J.,
concurring.
I concur generally in the majority opinion. What follows, will, I hope, make apparent the reason for a separate concurrence. I think it may be conceded that the plaintiff did not know until November 1974 that he had suffered a new and different accidental injury to his back on October 23, 1973. It is hardly conceivable that had he been informed by his.doctor after the surgery in January of 1974, that that surgery involved a different disc from that in the previous surgery, he would not have promptly made claim for workmen’s compensation. It should be equally clear that, had the plaintiff inquired of his doctor what the surgery showed, he would have been informed of what he did not know until November 1974. The question is, was he required to make such inquiry? It is in this connection that the dissenting opinion indicates some confusion about what tolls the statute. The dissent says: “The majority opinion has not only ignored specific findings of fact, *794but has converted them into a conclusion that the plaintiffs only mistake was a mistake of law. The foundation for that conclusion is that plaintiff did not know that an aggravation to the first injury, if caused by the second injury, would have been compensable. There was more than that, that he did not know. He didn’t know that the second back injury and operation were the result of the second accident rather than the first.” The confusion which this statement shows is as to the standard which is applicable. The standard, as the opinion of the court indicates, is the same as in case of latent and progressive injuries, that is, the statute begins to run from the time “it becomes reasonably apparent or should have become reasonably apparent” that he had a disability which arose from an accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment. (Emphasis added.) Ohnmacht v. Peter Kiewit Sons Co., 178 Neb. 741, 135 N. W. 2d 237. This court has apparently never attempted to precisely define “should have become reasonably apparent” in cases of this type.' Other courts have indicated that this means “in the exercise of reasonable care should know.” 100 C. J. S., Workmen’s Compensation, § 436, p. 304, cases cited Note 48.
In this case it is apparent that both the Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Court and the District Court were applying the wrong standard. Their findings related to the objective lack of knowledge of the petitioner. Where a mere inquiry by the patient of his surgeon would have disclosed the information, it must be said that as a matter of law the injury and the cause “should have been readily apparent” to the workman. This is not a case such as Borowski v. Armco Steel Corp., 188 Neb. 654, 198 N. W. 2d 460, where the petitioner’s ignorance was caused by the inability of a number of doctors to diagnose the injury and to determine its cause.
I further wish to point out for the purpose of clari*795fying the issue, that the plaintiff had a compensable injury whether he suffered an entirely new injury because of the incident of October 23, 1973, or whether, by reason of accidental injury arising out of and in the course of his employment on that date, he merely aggravated the earlier injury, i.e., the changed condition was not merely a natural progression of the first injury. Turner v. Beatrice Foods Co., 165 Neb. 338, 85 N. W. 2d 721. I think the majority opinion does not make this quite clear. It is, of course, no longer necessary, that in order for an injury to be compensable, there be an accident — although in this case the evidence indicates there was. It is only necessary that there be “an unexpected or unforeseen injury happening suddenly and violently . . . and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury.” § 48-151(2), R. R. S. 1943. See, also, Brokaw v. Robinson, 183 Neb. 760, 164 N. W. 2d 461. There is no dispute here that the petitioner knew on October 23, 1973, that he had had an accident and suffered an injury. In January of 1974, following the surgery, a simple inquiry of his surgeon would have informed him of its nature and its cause.