DANNY GRUBBS, Plaintiff,
v.
SCOTTSBLUFF COUNTY, N.E. A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION, Defendant.
No. 1380
DOC 206
Nebraska Workers Compensation
April 7, 2007
James
L. Zimmerman, Attorney at Law Zimmerman Law Firm PC LLO
Dallas
D. Jones, Attorney at Law Baylor, Evnen Curtiss, Grimit &
Witt
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
James
R. Coe, JUDGE
This
cause came on for hearing before the Nebraska Workers’
Compensation Court at Gering, Scotts Bluff County, Nebraska,
on October 30, 2007, on the petition of the plaintiff, answer
of the defendant, pretrial order and on the evidence, Judge
James R. Coe, one of the judges of said court presiding.
Plaintiff appeared in person and was represented by counsel.
Defendant was represented by counsel. Testimony was taken,
evidence adduced, cause submitted, and the Court being fully
advised in the premises finds as follows:
I.
The
plaintiff in his petition and pre-trial order alleges that on
or about March 7, 2006, he was in the employ of the defendant
as an equipment operator, at an average weekly wage of
$486.00 and while so employed and on said date and while
engaged in the duties of his employment he suffered injuries
to his spine, left upper extremity, and psychological
injuries as a result of an accident arising out of and in the
course of his employment when the plaintiff would operate his
front end loader the plaintiff experienced jarring which
resulted in cumulative trauma and compression fractures or in
the alternative the compression fractures were caused when
the plaintiff fell down to his hands and knees after
relieving himself and experienced compression fractures of
the spine, or which fall resulted in pain and hypoxia causing
a seizure which resulted in the compression fractures for
which he now claims compensation.
II.
For
amended answer to plaintiff’s petition the defendant admits
the plaintiff was in the employ of the defendant on March 7,
2006; alleges that if plaintiff suffers any disability which
the defendant specifically denies, that the same does not
arise out of or in the course of plaintiff’s employment by
the defendant, and further treat plaintiff’s injuries are the
result of an independent intervening cause and are not
attributable to any action or occupational disease arising
out of or in the course of plaintiff’s employment and
further, that the condition from which plaintiff suffers
resulted solely from sickness, infection, and disease and is
an inherent condition within the plaintiff and is not the
result of or attributable to any accident or occupational
disease arising out of or in the course and scope of
plaintiff’s employment and generally denies each and every
other allegation of plaintiff’s petition not expressly
admitted.
III.
On
March 7, 2006, the plaintiff was operating a dump truck. For
the several month period prior to March 7, 2006, the
plaintiff was operating a pay loader and used a tooth like
claw to break the clay and additionally used a truck to drive
over and smooth broken clay. The plaintiff alleges three
theories of causation The plaintiff...
