Sasges v. Eaton Corporation, 090607 NEWC, 0751

• Case Date: September 06, 2007
• Court: Nebraska

LARRY SASGES, Plaintiff, v. EATON CORPORATION and GAB ROBINS NORTH AMERICA, INC., Defendants. No. 0751 DOC 203 Nebraska Workers Compensation September 6, 2007           Britany S. Shotkoski James E. Harris, Attorneys at Law Harris Kuhn Law Firm LLP           Joseph E. Andres, Attorney at Law           ORDER           Ronald L. Brown, JUDGE          Plaintiff’s Motion to Determine Necessity of Medical Treatment Pursuant to § 48-120 and Motion for Penalties, Attorney’s Fees and Interest Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-125 were heard April 19, 2007. The Court received Exhibits 28 through 41. Arguments were heard. At the request of counsel, written briefs were submitted by May 7, 2007. The Court takes judicial notice of the pleadings of the parties and orders of the Court.          An award was entered January 16, 2004, which provided for payment of indemnity and future indemnity for a 60 percent permanent loss of earning power, future medical expenses and vocational rehabilitation. The award was not appealed. Thereafter, an Application for Modification of Original Award was filed May 25, 2005, which alleged a material and substantial change for the worse in plaintiff’s condition, entitlement to permanent total disability, medical expenses and waiting time payments and attorney’s fees. Defendant’s counsel Joseph Andres admitted that plaintiff had surgery and incurred medical expenses, denied the reasonableness and necessity of surgery and generally denied the remainder of plaintiff’s application for modification. The Application to Modify and Answer thereto were scheduled for trial January 13, 2006. On January 11, 2006, the parties filed a Stipulation for Dismissal Without Prejudice Due to No Present Controversy and an Order for Dismissal Without Prejudice Due to No Present Controversy was entered January 13, 2006. The order provided as follows:

1. The surgery performed by John Treves, M.D. on May 13, 2005, was causally related to, medically necessary and reasonable for the treatment of plaintiff’s compensable low back injury. 2. Plaintiff has not yet reached maximum medical improvement from the surgery performed on May 13, 2005.

...