Oral Arguments are happening now. View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

Pearson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Milling Company

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
Wednesday, February 6, 2013

S-12-0729, Thomas L. Pearson (Appellant) v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Milling Company

 

Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court

 

Attorneys: Eric B. Brown (Atwood Holsten Brown & Deaver PCLLO) (Appellant) --- Brynne E. Holsten (Engles Ketcham Olson & Keith PC)

 

Civil: Determination of benefits for injured worker

 

Proceedings below: This case was previously before the Supreme Court. See Pearson v. Archer-Daniels-Midland Milling Company, 282 Neb. 400 (2011) (affirmed in part, and in part reversed and remanded for further proceedings). Upon remand, the trial court found the Appellant’s knee replacement was not persuasively established to be the product of the subject accident but prompted by Appellant’s preexisting degenerative knee condition. The review panel affirmed.

 

Issues: 1. The opinions of Drs. Gammel and Bozarth, upon which the court relied, do not provide a basis for support or affirmance of the Order on Remand and the trial court erred in failing to rely on the opinions of Dr. Clare. 2. The trial court's determination, affirmed by the Review Panel, is contrary to the law in that it is legally inconsistent and does not comport with the findings of the original decree. 3. The trial court's Order on Remand erred in failing to award Pearson additional indemnity benefits associated with his knew replacement surgery.

 

This page was last modified on Monday, February 11, 2013