Stacy v. Great Lakes Agri Marketing, Inc.
Nebraska Supreme Court
753 N.W.2d 785, 276 Neb. 236 (2008)
- Written by Whitney Punzone, JD
Facts
Michael Stacy (plaintiff) was employed by Great Lakes Agri Marketing (Great Lakes) (defendant) doing business as Bridgeport Tractor when he was hit in the knee with a piece of metal on July 21, 2004. Stacy filed for workers’-compensation benefits, including vocational-rehabilitation benefits. Stacy had deep vein thrombosis, and there was a question as to whether he had reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD). However, Stacy’s condition required anticoagulation therapy and medication for the foreseeable future. Stacy was offered a sedentary computer job by his manager, but he had no computer training or experience. The Workers’ Compensation Court appointed a vocational-rehabilitation counselor, who determined that Stacy’s work injury eliminated his earning capacity. By December 2005, Stacy’s physician, Dr. Bryan Scheer, determined that Stacy’s right leg was totally impaired. Bridgeport Tractor’s insurer informed Stacy that he was at maximum medical improvement, with a 22 to 23 percent impairment of the right lower extremity, and he received permanent partial disability. A single judge found that Stacy had RSD, producing a scheduled member injury, which reached maximum medical improvement on January 20, 2005. The judge found Stacy was not entitled to vocational-rehabilitation benefits because of the available sedentary job with Bridgeport Tractor. The judge awarded Stacy temporary total disability and 100 percent permanent loss of a scheduled member. Stacy petitioned for a review. The review panel affirmed the judge’s findings. Stacy appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gerrard, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.