Hoeppner v. City of Omaha

Nebraska Supreme Court

Hoeppner v. City of Omaha

376 N.W.2d 561, 221 Neb. 326, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 1253

CourtNebraska Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 22, 1985

DocketNo. 85-277

StatusPublished

This text of 376 N.W.2d 561 (Hoeppner v. City of Omaha) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hoeppner v. City of Omaha, 376 N.W.2d 561, 221 Neb. 326, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 1253 (Neb. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Initially, the Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Court entered an award on May 18, 1977, for workmen’s compensation benefits payable to Melvin H. Hoeppner on account of his disability, permanent and partial. Hoeppner obtained subsequent modifications of that award, but, in early 1983, the final payment of benefits for 300 weeks of disability was received by Hoeppner. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-121(2) (Reissue 1984). Upon Hoeppner’s application for modification of the award entered on May 18, 1977, the compensation court on rehearing found that the “medical reports offered by [Hoeppner] and received in evidence fail to set forth any basis for a finding that [Hoeppner] has suffered an increase of disability.” Hoeppner maintains that the compensation court’s judgment of March 15,1985, is contrary to the evidence.

We have reviewed the record and find sufficient evidence to sustain the factual determinations and findings made by the Workmen’s Compensation Court, which determinations are not clearly wrong. See Zaleski v. Farmland Foods, 219 Neb. 157, 361 N.W.2d 523 (1985). See, also, Thomas v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 211 Neb. 704, 320 N.W.2d 111 (1982).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

Initially, the Nebraska Workmen’s Compensation Court entered an award on May 18, 1977, for workmen’s compensation benefits payable to Melvin H. Hoeppner on account of his disability, permanent and partial. Hoeppner obtained subsequent modifications of that award, but, in early 1983, the final payment of benefits for 300 weeks of disability was received by Hoeppner. See Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-121(2) (Reissue 1984). Upon Hoeppner’s application for modification of the award entered on May 18, 1977, the compensation court on rehearing found that the “medical reports offered by [Hoeppner] and received in evidence fail to set forth any basis for a finding that [Hoeppner] has suffered an increase of disability.” Hoeppner maintains that the compensation court’s judgment of March 15,1985, is contrary to the evidence.

We have reviewed the record and find sufficient evidence to sustain the factual determinations and findings made by the Workmen’s Compensation Court, which determinations are not clearly wrong. See Zaleski v. Farmland Foods, 219 Neb. 157, 361 N.W.2d 523 (1985). See, also, Thomas v. Kayser-Roth Corp., 211 Neb. 704, 320 N.W.2d 111 (1982).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

376 N.W.2d 561, 221 Neb. 326, 1985 Neb. LEXIS 1253, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hoeppner-v-city-of-omaha-neb-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack