Court Opinion

ID: 9866504
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-26 13:09:06.127695+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:40:57.053202
License: Public Domain

IN THE NEBRASKA COURT OF APPEALS

               MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT ON APPEAL
                        (Memorandum Web Opinion)

                               PRINCE V. WALMART ASSOCIATES

  NOTICE: THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PERMANENT PUBLICATION
 AND MAY NOT BE CITED EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY NEB. CT. R. APP. P. § 2-102(E).

                                DEBORAH E. PRINCE, APPELLANT,
                                               V.

   WALMART ASSOCIATES, INC., AND ITS WORKERS’ COMPENSATION INSURER, AIU INSURANCE
                                COMPANY, APPELLEES.

                           Filed September 26, 2023.    No. A-23-044.

       Appeal from the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court: JAMES R. COE, Judge. Affirmed.
       Brynne Holsten Puhl, of Atwood, Holsten, Brown, Deaver, Spier & Israel Law Firm, P.C.,
L.L.O., for appellant.
       Jenna M. Christensen, of Caswell, Panko & Westerhold, L.L.C., for appellees.

       BISHOP, ARTERBURN, and WELCH, Judges.
       ARTERBURN, Judge.
                                       INTRODUCTION
        Deborah E. Prince appeals from an order of the Workers’ Compensation Court dismissing
her claim for workers’ compensation benefits. On appeal, Prince argues that the compensation
court erred in finding that she failed to timely notify her employer, Walmart Associates, Inc.
(Walmart), of her injury. For the reasons set forth herein, we affirm the decision of the
compensation court to dismiss Prince’s claim because she did not provide notice of her injuries to
Walmart “as soon as practicable” as is required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-133 (Reissue 2021).
                                        BACKGROUND
      In January 2021, Prince was employed at one of Walmart’s stores in Omaha, Nebraska,
working in the bakery department. At some point around January 20, Prince was washing the

                                              -1-
bakery floor at the end of her workday when she slipped on the wet floor. She did not fall to the
ground, but her left leg “twisted” and she felt immediate pain. Prince was alone at the time of this
incident.
         Prince did not immediately report this incident to her supervisors. Instead, she attempted
to treat her injury with ointments and over-the-counter pain relievers. However, according to
Prince, her injury worsened. Prince indicated that her pain level was “way over a 10” and she cried
every day at work. In addition, she limped and had to hold on to shelves when she walked down
the store’s aisles. During this time, Prince continued to work full time, completing her regular
duties.
         On March 29, 2021, an incident report was filed with Walmart regarding Prince’s injury to
her left leg. The filing of the report was precipitated by Yaovi Grunitzky (Joelle), an operations
manager at the Walmart store, observing Prince limping around the store. When he asked her what
was wrong and what had happened, Prince disclosed that she had been hurt while washing the
floor in the bakery in January. When he asked why she had not followed policy and reported the
accident earlier, she told him that she did not know why she had not made an earlier report.
         Shortly after the filing of the incident report, Walmart referred Prince to Dr. Arthur West
for treatment. West initially diagnosed Prince as suffering from a strain of the hamstring muscle
in her left leg. He prescribed a muscle relaxer and referred her to a physical therapist. However,
when this treatment plan proved unsuccessful, West conducted an MRI of Prince’s left leg and
learned she had an injury to her left hip. Ultimately, in May 2021, Prince was informed that her
injury required a total joint replacement of her left hip.
         Walmart also permitted Prince to change departments at the store to accommodate her
physical restrictions. Instead of working in the bakery, on March 31, 2021, Prince began working
as a door greeter where she could remain seated for most of the day.
         Prince underwent hip replacement surgery in September 2021. After the surgery, she
experienced some improvement in the pain in her left leg. Prince did not work from September 23
through November 19 as a result of the surgery. Walmart voluntarily paid her lost wages during
this time period. Walmart also voluntarily paid for $37,097.30 of Prince’s medical expenses, which
included the majority of Prince’s left hip treatment, including the left hip surgery. When Prince
returned to work at Walmart in November, she answered telephone calls and gradually transitioned
to working in the bakery department again. Prince voluntarily reduced her working hours to 8
hours per day, for 3 days per week. She has had to seek help whenever she needs to bend down or
lift anything heavy.
         In February 2022, Prince filed a petition for workers’ compensation benefits. Prince
indicated in her petition that the matters in dispute included:
         the compensability of past, present, and future medical and mileage expenses,
         reimbursements, the compensability of future medical care, temporary disability, and
         [whether Prince] has reached maximum medical improvement at the time of trial, further
         issues will include the nature and extent of [Prince’s] permanent impairment and disability,
        entitlement to vocational rehabilitation, and waiting time, interest, and attorney fees
        concerning said benefits.

                                                -2-
         Walmart filed a timely answer to Prince’s petition. In its answer, Walmart denied that
Prince suffered a disability which arose out of or in the course of her employment with Walmart.
Walmart also affirmatively alleged that no notice of injury was given by Prince to Walmart as soon
as practicable after the happening thereof as is required by § 48-133.
         In May 2022, a few months after filing her petition, Prince returned to her orthopedic
surgeon, complaining of persistent and severe pain in her right leg and hip. The surgeon thought
that the pain on her right side could have been caused by “compensating from the left hip for so
long.” The surgeon recommended that Prince undergo right hip replacement surgery. The issue of
the compensability of the injury to her right hip was added by interlineation to Prince’s petition.
         Trial was held on Prince’s petition on December 5, 2022. Because the only relevant issue
presented in this appeal is whether Prince timely notified Walmart of her work related accident
and associated injury, we focus our recitation of the evidence presented at trial on that issue.
         Prince testified that at the time of her January 2021 accident in the bakery, Rose Vargas
was her direct supervisor at Walmart. Prince indicated that she believed that she told Vargas about
the accident “within a few days” of it occurring, but she was unable to recall exactly when such
conversation occurred: “I don’t know when I told her.” Prince conceded that she had not even
thought about telling Vargas immediately after the accident. Prince also conceded that she did not
have a specific recollection about the substance of her conversation with Vargas when she did
report the accident. She testified, “[Vargas] probably saw me limping and I just told her what had
happened.”
         Prince ultimately testified that she knows she did not report her January 2021 accident to
any manager or supervisor at Walmart within the first week after it occurred. She did testify that
she told a floor manager other than Vargas “probably before” the filing of the incident report on
March 29. However, this testimony differed from her deposition testimony from June 2022, where
she specifically indicated that prior to the March 29 incident report, she had not told any supervisor
besides Vargas about the accident. Prince was reprimanded by her supervisors at Walmart for not
timely informing them of the accident.
         During her trial testimony, Prince attempted to explain why she had not reported her injury
earlier. She testified that previously, in late 2019 or early 2020, she had injured her eye while
cleaning an oven in the bakery. According to Prince, she immediately reported this injury to Joelle,
the operations manager, but he did not have her fill out any paperwork or go to the doctor. Prince
testified that she did not immediately report the January 2021 accident, because she assumed it
would be treated in the same manner as her prior accident.
         Vargas, Prince’s direct supervisor at Walmart in January 2021, also testified at trial. Vargas
explained that she did not witness Prince’s accident in the bakery. However, sometime after the
accident, Vargas asked Prince why she had been limping. Prince then told her about almost falling
in the bakery. Vargas could not recall exactly when she had this conversation with Prince, but
believed it was possibly about a week prior to her learning that Prince was moving to a new
position in Walmart outside of the bakery. Vargas also explained that she had observed Prince to
be limping for some time after January 20, 2021, but initially did not think much of it, since Prince
had always moved slowly. Vargas did not ask Prince about her limp until it had become much
worse.

                                                 -3-
        Joelle, the manager that ultimately insisted Prince report her injury, also testified. Joelle
explained that he happened to observe Prince limping one day while she was working at Walmart.
He asked her what had happened, and she told him about the accident in the bakery in January
2021. This conversation took place immediately prior to Prince making an incident report on
March 29, 2021. Joelle testified that he did not recall noticing Prince limping prior to March 29.
Joelle also testified that he did not recall ever having been informed that Prince had previously
suffered from an eye injury as a result of working in the bakery.
        Joelle indicated that employees of Walmart are trained that when they are injured in the
course of their employment with Walmart, they have a responsibility to report it to a member of
the management staff so that an incident intake can be completed immediately.
        Following the trial, the compensation court found that Prince had “incurred an injury on
January 20, 2021 which resulted in continuous pain and limping since that date.” However, the
court also found that Prince did not advise Walmart of her accident or injury until March 29, when
her manager specifically asked her why she was limping. The court found, “under the particular
facts and circumstances of this case, [Prince] failed to give notice ‘as soon as practicable’” as is
required by § 48-133. The court noted, “One wonders if [Prince] would have ever told the
employer, if not for the fact that the employer inquired.” The compensation court dismissed
Prince’s petition as a result of her failure to provide Walmart with proper notice of her injury.
        Prince appeals from the court’s dismissal of her petition.
                                   ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR
        Restated and consolidated, Prince contends that the compensation court erred in finding
that she failed to give Walmart notice of her injury as soon as was practicable.
                                    STANDARD OF REVIEW
        Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 2021), an appellate court may modify,
reverse, or set aside a compensation court decision only when (1) the compensation court acted
without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was procured by fraud; (3)
there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the order,
judgment, or award; or (4) the findings of fact by the compensation court do not support the order
or award. Greenwood v. J.J. Hooligan’s, 297 Neb. 435, 899 N.W.2d 905 (2017).
        Where the underlying facts are undisputed, or if disputed, the factual finding of the trial
court was not clearly erroneous, the question of whether § 48-133 bars the claim is a question of
law upon which the appellate court must make a determination independent of that of the trial
court. Unger v. Olsen’s Ag. Lab., 19 Neb. App. 459, 809 N.W.2d 813 (2012).
                                            ANALYSIS
       Section 48-133 provides, in relevant part:
                No proceedings for compensation for an injury under the Nebraska Workers’
       Compensation Act shall be maintained unless a notice of the injury shall have been given
       to the employer as soon as practicable after the happening thereof . . . . Want of such written
       notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act,
       if it be shown that the employer had notice or knowledge of the injury.

                                                -4-
As such, the compensation court properly dismissed Prince’s claim for benefits if it correctly found
that Prince did not report her injury suffered in January 2021 to Walmart “as soon as practicable.”
This court has previously defined “practicable” to mean “capable of being done, effected, or put
into practice with the available means, i.e., feasible.” Williamson v. Werner Enters., 12 Neb. App.
642, 652, 682 N.W.2d 723, 731 (2004).
        In Williamson v. Werner Enters., supra, we explained the requirement that an employee
notify their employer of an injury as soon as practicable:
        The requirement that notice be given “as soon as practicable” has been a part of the
        workers’ compensation statutes since their inception in 1913. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 3674
        (1913). In discussing the requirements of § 3674, the Nebraska Supreme Court stated in
        Good v. City of Omaha, 102 Neb. 654, 655-56, 168 N.W. 639 (1918): “[T]he requirement
        of the statute is only what a person acting in good faith would be likely to do without a
        statute. One receiving an injury, for which he expects to hold another liable, would feel
        called upon, as soon as practicable after receiving the injury, to give the other notice of it,
        and would feel called upon, as soon as he knew the nature and extent of his injury, to make
        his demand for compensation. In courts of justice, the good faith of a claim is always more
        or less discredited by the fact that no immediate demand was made or that prosecution was
        long delayed. The employer is entitled to an early demand, so that he may know the nature
        and amount of the claim; may settle it, if possible, or, if not, may investigate the facts and
        preserve his evidence.”

Id. at 646, 682 N.W.2d at 727.
         The Supreme Court has also examined the requirement that notice of an injury be reported
to an employer “as soon as practicable.” In Scott v. Pepsi Cola Co., 249 Neb. 60, 541 N.W.2d 49
(1995), the court explained that the purposes of the notice requirement are to enable the employer
to provide immediate medical diagnosis and treatment with a view to minimizing the seriousness
of the injury and to facilitate the earliest possible investigation of the facts surrounding the injury.
As such, pursuant to the Supreme Court’s decision in Scott, the crucial questions presented in this
appeal are when Walmart had knowledge sufficient to lead a reasonable person to conclude that
Prince’s leg and hip injury was potentially compensable and that an investigation into the injury
was necessary and if such knowledge was acquired “as soon as practicable” after Prince’s accident.
         Here, the evidence regarding when Walmart had sufficient knowledge to put it on notice
of Prince’s work-related injury is, as the compensation court found, “less than clear.” In her trial
testimony, Prince could not even recall the exact date of her accident in the bakery, let alone the
date that she first reported this incident to any of her supervisors. She believed that the accident
occurred sometime around January 20, 2021, and that she informed her direct supervisor, Vargas,
“within a few days.” However, Prince could not specify exactly when her conversation with
Vargas occurred. She also could not recall the details of their conversation. In addition, Prince
testified that she definitely did not report her accident and injury to any manager or supervisor
within the first week of the occurrence. Prince could only explain, “[Vargas] probably saw me
limping, and I just told her what had happened.” During her trial testimony, Prince also referenced
telling another supervisor, “Manya,” about her injury in the weeks following her accident,
however, she could not recall exactly when such conversation occurred, only recalling that it was

                                                 -5-
“probably before” making her formal report to Walmart in March. This testimony contradicted her
prior deposition testimony that she could not recall telling any supervisor besides Vargas about the
accident prior to making her formal report.
        During Vargas’ trial testimony, she confirmed Prince’s account that she had, at some point,
asked Prince why she was limping. However, while Vargas also did not recall the date of this
conversation with Prince, her testimony indicated that it must have occurred more than just a few
days after Prince’s injury. Vargas testified that she had observed Prince to be limping for some
time prior to asking her what was wrong. Vargas explained that Prince had always walked slowly,
so initially, Vargas did not think Prince was injured when she began to limp. Vargas did not ask
Prince about the limping until Prince’s condition appeared to be much worse. Vargas opined that
her conversation with Prince may have occurred around the time that she learned that Prince was
moving to a new position outside of the bakery. Evidence presented at trial revealed that Prince
began working as a door greeter, rather than in the bakery, on March 31, 2021.
        The evidence presented at trial revealed that Prince made a formal report regarding her
injury with Walmart on March 29, 2021, after Joelle observed her limping and asked her what had
happened. Prince indicated during her trial testimony that she had not made a report earlier because
she did not believe anything would be done about her injury. Prince testified that, ultimately, she
got reprimanded by her supervisors at Walmart for failing to timely inform them of her accident
and injury, pursuant to Walmart’s employee policy.
        In its order, the compensation court found that Walmart was not advised of Prince’s
accident and injury until Prince made her formal report on March 29, 2021, more than 2 months
after the accident occurred. Upon our review of the record, we do not find the court’s factual
finding regarding the date that Walmart learned of Prince’s accident and injury to be clearly
erroneous. Prince was unable to provide any clear evidence to demonstrate when or if she had
notified a supervisor at Walmart of her injury prior to filing her report on March 29. In fact, other
evidence presented at the trial suggested that Prince did not report her accident or injury to any
supervisor until Joelle directly confronted her about her limping on March 29. Additionally, as
Vargas testified, Prince’s physical condition after January 20 did not put Walmart on notice of
Prince’s accident or injury, given that there was, apparently, no drastic change in Prince’s ability
to walk. Prince, herself, testified that up until at least March 29, she continued to work her regular
hours and performed her regular duties, despite being in a great amount of pain and feeling that
her condition was not improving.
        The compensation court also found that since Walmart was not provided with any notice
of Prince’s accident and injury until March 29, 2021, “under the particular facts and circumstances
of this case, [she] failed to give notice ‘as soon as practicable.’” Upon our review, we agree with
the determination of the compensation court.
        In Williamson v. Werner Enters., 12 Neb. App. 642, 682 N.W.2d 723 (2004), this court
found that an employee’s delay of 5 months in reporting an injury sustained at work did not
constitute notice as soon as practicable because the employee failed to present evidence that it was
not feasible for him to have reported the injury sooner. Similarly, in Bauer v. Genesis Healthcare
Group, 27 Neb. App. 904, 937 N.W.2d 492 (2019), we found that an employee’s delay of 5 weeks
in reporting an injury sustained at work did not constitute notice as soon as practicable because, as

                                                -6-
a result of the lack of notice, the employee suffered further injury and impaired his employer’s
ability to investigate the circumstances surrounding his work related accident.
         Based upon the evidence presented at trial, there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate
that Walmart was potentially compromised by Prince’s decision not to report her injury for more
than 2 months after her work-related accident. First, had Prince immediately reported her injury
and sought treatment, a medical professional could have examined the nature and extent of the
injury and caused Prince to have surgery on her left hip sooner. Such earlier treatment of her left
hip may have prevented the subsequent injury to Prince’s right hip, which the doctor opined was
caused by “compensating from the left hip for so long.” Prince testified at trial that she had not
seen a doctor prior to making her March 29, 2021, report of injury to Walmart. She saw Walmart’s
doctors almost immediately after making her report.
         Moreover, after Walmart was made aware of Prince’s accident and injury on March 29,
2021, it temporarily reassigned Prince to be a door greeter so that she could sit for a majority of
her work day. Had Walmart learned of Prince’s accident and injury earlier, it may have been able
to mitigate Prince’s injuries by restricting her movements at work.
         Finally, because Walmart did not learn of Prince’s accident and injury until 2 months after
the occurrence, it was not in a good position to investigate the nature and extent of Prince’s
accident in the bakery or to defend against Prince’s claim for workers’ compensation benefits. Of
particular concern in these circumstances is Prince’s failure to explain the length of time between
her accident and her report to Walmart. Other than to explain that she did not think that Walmart
would do anything about her injury, she does not indicate why she could not have reported her
accident and injury earlier.
         Based upon the evidence presented at trial, we conclude that it was practicable for Prince
to report her injury within a reasonable period of time following her January 2021 injury and that
she failed to do so. Consequently, the compensation court correctly determined that Prince failed
to give notice to Walmart “as soon as practicable.”
                                         CONCLUSION
       Having determined as a matter of law that the compensation court correctly found that
Prince failed to give her employer, Walmart, notice “as soon as practicable” as required by
§ 48-133, we affirm the compensation court’s dismissal of Prince’s petition.
                                                                                 AFFIRMED.

                                               -7-