Legal Opinion

Madlock v. Square D Co.

Nebraska Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 2005No. S-04-758PublishedCited by 9 opinions

1Opinion of the CourtWright, J.

NATURE OF CASE

Amanda Madlock appeals from the judgment of a Workers’ Compensation Court review panel that reversed, in part, an award entered by the trial court. The review panel found that because Madlock’s foot injury (a scheduled member injury) was taken into consideration in determining her loss of earning capacity, the trial court’s award of separate benefits for the member injury constituted an impermissible double recovery of benefits.

SCOPE OF REVIEW

With respect to questions of law in workers’ compensation cases, an appellate court is obligated to make its own determination. Hobza v.…

2Cases cited10 opinions

  1. Mortimer v. Fruehauf Corp.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1993
  2. Kellerman v. Food Lion, Inc.Tennessee Supreme Court · 1996
  3. Zavala v. ConAgra Beef Co.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2003
  4. Miller v. Lauridsen Foods, Inc.Supreme Court of Iowa · 1994
  5. Jeffers v. Pappas Trucking, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 1977

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by9 opinions

  1. Rodriguez v. Hirschbach Motor LinesNebraska Supreme Court · 2005
  2. Risor v. Nebraska BoilerNebraska Supreme Court · 2009
  3. Boise Cascade Corp. v. JacksonCourt of Civil Appeals of Alabama · 2007
  4. Ortiz v. Cement Products, Inc.Nebraska Supreme Court · 2005
  5. Picard v. P & C Group 1Nebraska Supreme Court · 2020

4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API