Harold Frauendorfer v. Lindsay Manufacturing Company, Inc., 263 Neb. 237

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed an award of temporary total disability, temporary partial disability, and permanent total disability benefits to Harold Frauendorfer for a work-related back injury. The court held that sufficient evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Court's findings and that the presumption of correctness applicable to an agreed vocational rehabilitation counselor's loss-of-earning-power evaluation had been rebutted. The court also upheld reliance on the claimant's testimony and vocational evidence in determining disability.

Holdings

1. The evidence was sufficient to support temporary total disability benefits from the date of Frauendorfer's first surgery until the date he was released to return to limited-capacity work.
2. The evidence was sufficient to support a 30-percent temporary partial disability award from Frauendorfer's return to work after the first surgery until the second surgery.
3. The evidence was sufficient to support temporary total disability benefits from the second surgery through the date of maximum medical improvement.
4. The evidence was sufficient to support the award of permanent total disability benefits under the odd-lot doctrine.
5. The trial judge's factual findings were sufficient to establish that the statutory presumption of correctness applicable to the agreed-upon vocational rehabilitation counselor's loss-of-earning-power evaluation had been rebutted.

Questions Presented

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the award of temporary total disability benefits after Frauendorfer's first surgery.
2. Whether sufficient evidence supported the award of temporary partial disability benefits between Frauendorfer's first and second surgeries.
3. Whether sufficient evidence supported the award of temporary total disability benefits after the second surgery through maximum medical improvement.
4. Whether sufficient evidence supported the award of permanent total disability benefits under the odd-lot doctrine.
5. Whether the trial judge properly determined that the statutory presumption of correctness applicable to the agreed-upon vocational rehabilitation counselors' loss-of-earning-power evaluations had been rebutted.

Disposition

affirmed