What does ‘Accident’ Mean in Nebraska?

Glossary Check

If someone asked you what "accident" meant for workers' compensation purposes in the Cornhusker State, would you know what to tell them? If you had Simply Research, you could get that information with a couple of clicks.

We take a look at the highlights here.

Definition

"Accident" means an unexpected or unforeseen injury happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury. The claimant has the burden of proof to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that such unexpected or unforeseen injury was in fact caused by the employment. There is no presumption from the mere occurrence of such unexpected or unforeseen injury that the injury was in fact caused by the employment

Caselaw

An injury is accidental, and thus compensable under workers' compensation statutes, if it is unexpected or unforeseen to the employee. Lopez v. Catholic Charities, 315 Neb. 617, 998 N.W.2d 31 (2023).

An employee's death from asphyxiation, after entering a grain bin at his workplace in violation of safety regulations and then becoming engulfed in grain, was the result of an "accident" covered by the exclusive jurisdiction of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, even though the employer willfully violated the Occupational Safety and Health Administration regulations. Estate of Teague v. Crossroads Co-op Assn., 286 Neb. 1, 834 N.W.2d 236 (2013).

A worker's noise-induced hearing loss is a condition resulting from the cumulative effects of work-related trauma, tested under the statutory definition of accident. Risor v. Nebraska Boiler, 277 Neb. 679, 765 N.W.2d 170 (2009).

An injured worker must satisfy three elements to prove an injury is the result of an accident: (1) The injury must be unexpected or unforeseen, (2) the accident must happen suddenly and violently, and (3) the accident must produce at the time objective symptoms of injury. Risor v. Nebraska Boiler, 277 Neb. 679, 765 N.W.2d 170 (2009).

The compensability of a condition resulting from the cumulative effects of work-related trauma is tested under the statutory definition of accident. Risor v. Nebraska Boiler, 277 Neb. 679, 765 N.W.2d 170 (2009).

The "suddenly and violently" component of an "accident" does not mean instantaneously and with force; instead, the element is satisfied if the injury occurs at an identifiable point in time, requiring the employee to discontinue employment and seek medical treatment. Risor v. Nebraska Boiler, 277 Neb. 679, 765 N.W.2d 170 (2009).

An injury caused by a mental stimulus does not meet the requirement that a compensable accidental injury involve violence to the physical structure of the body. Zach v. Nebraska State Patrol, 273 Neb. 1, 727 N.W.2d 206 (2007).

The compensability of a condition resulting from the cumulative effects of work-related trauma is to be tested under the statutory definition of accident. "Suddenly and violently" does not mean instantaneously and with force, but, rather, the element is satisfied if the injury occurs at an identifiable point in time requiring the employee to discontinue employment and seek medical treatment. The time of an accident is sufficiently definite, for purposes of proving that an accident happened "suddenly and violently," if either the cause is reasonably limited in time or the result materializes at an identifiable point. Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (2003).

While cumulative effects of repeated work-related trauma have characteristics of both accidental injury and occupational disease, generally the compensability of such a condition is tested under the statutory definition of accident. The "unexpected or unforeseen" requirement of is satisfied if either the cause was of an accidental character or the effect was unexpected or unforeseen. "Suddenly and violently" does not mean instantaneously and with force, but, rather, the element is satisfied if the injury occurs at an identifiable point in time requiring the employee to discontinue employment and seek medical treatment. Where employee returned to work, but did not resume the duties which led to his injury, but instead was transferred to a position requiring less strenuous activity, evidence was sufficient to support finding that injury occurred "suddenly and violently". The third statutory requirement, that the accident produced objective symptoms, is satisfied if the symptoms manifest themselves according to the natural course of such things without any independent intervening cause. In a workers' compensation case, the plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the injury for which an award is sought arose out of and in the course of employment. If the nature and effect of a claimant's injury are not plainly apparent, then the claimant must provide expert medical testimony showing a causal connection between the injury and the claimed disability. Although expert medical testimony need not be couched in the magic words "reasonable medical certainty" or "reasonable probability", it must be sufficient as examined in its entirety to establish the crucial causal link between the plaintiff's injuries and the accident occurring in the course and scope of the worker's employment. Owen v. American Hydraulics, Inc., 258 Neb. 881, 606 N.W.2d 470 (2000).

The compensability of a condition resulting from the cumulative effects of repeated work-related trauma is to be tested under the statutory definition of accident. Frank v. A & L Insulation, 256 Neb. 898, 594 N.W.2d 586 (1999).

Negligent medical treatment at an employer's first-aid medical facility, by a trained and qualified professional upon a coemployee, may constitute an "accident" as defined in the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act upon proof and a finding of such facts. Winn v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co., 252 Neb. 29, 560 N.W.2d 143 (1997).

An accident is defined as "an unexpected or unforeseen injury happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury." The "unexpected or unforeseen" requirement is satisfied if either the cause was of an accidental character or the effect was unexpected or unforeseen. Schlup v. Auburn Needleworks, 239 Neb. 854, 479 N.W.2d 490 (1992).

In order to have been the result of an "accident," an injury must have been unexpected or unforeseen, have occurred suddenly and violently, and have produced objective symptoms. The objective symptoms exist either where the nature and effect of the injury are plainly apparent or where there is expert testimony showing a causal connection between the injury and the claimed disability. Catlin v. Prairie Marketing, 239 Neb. 363, 476 N.W.2d 675 (1991).

The cumulative effects of repeated work-related trauma which do not, at an identifiable moment, produce objective symptoms requiring, within a reasonably limited period of time, medical attention and the interruption or discontinuance of employment are not the product of an accidental injury. The compensability of a condition resulting from the cumulative effects of repeated work-related trauma is to be tested under the definition of an accident. Vencil v. Valmont, 239 Neb. 31, 473 N.W.2d 409 (1991).

The cumulative effects of repeated work-related trauma which do not at an identifiable moment produce objective symptoms requiring, within a reasonably limited period of time, medical attention and the interruption or discontinuance of employment are not the product of an accidental injury. Maxson v. Michael Todd & Co., 238 Neb. 209, 469 N.W.2d 542 (1991).

Where an injury is the result of mental stimulus, in order for it to be compensable under the Nebraska workers' compensation law, the injured party must prove an unexpected or unforeseen event, happening suddenly and violently and producing at the time objective symptoms of injury and violence to the physical structure of the body. Sorensen v. City of Omaha, 230 Neb. 286, 430 N.W.2d 696 (1988).

Onset of pronator teres syndrome and carpal tunnel syndrome was an accident within meaning of statute and sufficient evidence was produced to prove causation. Masters v. Iowa Beef Processors, 220 Neb. 835, 374 N.W.2d 21 (1985).

The "unexpected or unforeseen" requirement is satisfied if either the cause was of an accidental character or the effect was unexpected or unforeseen. The "suddenly and violently" element does not mean instantaneously and with force, but instead means at an identifiable point in time requiring the employee to discontinue employment and seek medical treatment. McLaughlin v. Self-Insurance Servs., 219 Neb. 260, 361 N.W.2d 585 (1985).

The requirement that an accident occur suddenly and violently does not mean that it occur instantaneously but is satisfied if the injury occurs at some identifiable point in time, requiring the employee to discontinue employment and seek medical treatment. Trauma to the body may be caused by action other than direct blows and it may occur inside the body. In proving that an injury was caused by accident, an employee must prove three separate elements. Sandel v. Packaging Co. of America, 211 Neb. 149, 317 N.W.2d 910 (1982).

The accident requirement of the act is satisfied if the cause of the injury was of accidental character or the effect was unexpected or unforeseen, and happened suddenly and violently; and, furthermore, it is no longer necessary that the injury be caused by a single traumatic event, but the exertion in the employment must contribute in some material and substantial degree to cause the injury. The term "arising out of" describes the accident and its origin, cause, and character, i.e., whether it resulted from the risks arising within the scope or sphere of the employee's job, while the term "in the course of" refers to the time, place, and circumstances surrounding the accident, and these two phrases are conjunctive and the claimant must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that both conditions exist. Union Packing Co. v. Klauschie, 210 Neb. 331, 314 N.W.2d 25 (1982).

The fact that one may experience pain during employment does not in and of itself prove that the employee is disabled as a result of an accident arising out of and in the course of one's employment. Therefore, where the nature and effect of one's injury is not plainly apparent, it is a subjective condition requiring expert testimony, and an award based solely on the injured employee's testimony, absent objective evidence that an accident within the meaning of the act has occurred, cannot stand. Mack v. Dale Electronics, Inc., 209 Neb. 367, 307 N.W.2d 814 (1981).

Where the claimant's condition satisfied the requirements both of an injury and of an occupational disease, the workmen's compensation court's finding that an accident occurred was affirmed. Crosby v. American Stores, 207 Neb. 251, 298 N.W.2d 157 (1980).

By accident requirement satisfied either if cause was of an accidental character, or if effect was unexpected or unforeseen and happened suddenly and violently. Brokaw v. Robinson, 183 Neb. 760, 164 N.W.2d 461 (1969).

Fall from a ladder constituted an accident arising out of and in the course of employment. Wheeler v. Northwestern Metal Co., 175 Neb. 841, 124 N.W.2d 377 (1963).

Mere exertion incident to occupation does not of itself constitute an accident. Pruitt v. McMaken Transp. Co., 175 Neb. 477, 122 N.W.2d 236 (1963).

Mere exertion, which is no greater than that ordinarily incident to the employment, does not of itself constitute an accident. Green v. Benson Transfer Co., 173 Neb. 226, 113 N.W.2d 61 (1962).

Injury sustained by employee through slipping on ice on public sidewalk was not compensable. Acton v. Wymore School Dist. No. 114, 172 Neb. 609, 111 N.W.2d 368 (1961).

Ordinary exertion, combined with preexisting disease, is not compensable. Hladky v. Omaha Body & Equipment Co., 172 Neb. 197, 109 N.W.2d 111 (1961).

To sustain an award under the Workmen's Compensation Act, there must be shown a causal connection between an accident suffered by claimant and his disability. Tilghman v. Mills, 169 Neb. 665, 100 N.W.2d 739 (1960); Feagins v. Carver, 162 Neb. 116, 75 N.W.2d 379 (1956).

To constitute accident, there must be an unexpected and unforeseen event that happened suddenly and violently. Schanhols v. Scottsbluff Bean & Elevator Co., 168 Neb. 626, 97 N.W.2d 220 (1959).

Symptoms of pain and anguish may constitute objective symptoms within requirements of act. Pittenger v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 166 Neb. 858, 91 N.W.2d 31 (1958); Knudsen v. McNeely, 159 Neb. 227, 66 N.W.2d 412 (1954); Anderson v. Cowger, 158 Neb. 772, 65 N.W.2d 51 (1954).

Evidence was insufficient to show that death from coronary thrombosis was result of accident. Eschenbrenner v. Employers Mutual Casualty Co., 165 Neb. 32, 84 N.W.2d 169 (1957).

Mere exertion which is no greater than that ordinarily incident to the employment cannot of itself constitute an accident. Jones v. Yankee Hill Brick Mfg. Co., 161 Neb. 404, 73 N.W.2d 394 (1955).

Injury sustained while lifting gas range was accident. Gilbert v. Metropolitan Utilities Dist., 156 Neb. 750, 57 N.W.2d 770 (1953).

Accident requires objective symptoms of an injury. Hahl v. Heyne, 156 Neb. 599, 57 N.W.2d 137 (1953).

Burden rests upon claimant to prove injury was caused by an accident. Tucker v. Paxton & Gallagher Co., 153 Neb. 1, 43 N.W.2d 522 (1950).

In absence of objective symptoms of an injury, mere exertion ordinarily incident to employment does not of itself constitute an accidental injury. Muff v. Brainard, 150 Neb. 650, 35 N.W.2d 597 (1949).

An accident within this act is an unexpected or unforeseen event happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury. Schwabauer v. State, 147 Neb. 620, 24 N.W.2d 431 (1946).

Where objective symptoms of a ruptured gall bladder were not present, recovery could not be had upon theory that accident aggravated chronic gall bladder disease. Hassmann v. City of Bloomfield, 146 Neb. 608, 20 N.W.2d 592 (1945).

Compensation may be allowed for neurosis if it is a proximate result of injury and results in disability. Lee v. Lincoln Cleaning & Dye Works, 145 Neb. 124, 15 N.W.2d 330 (1944).

Evidence that employee suffering from arteriosclerosis felt sharp pain in eye while moving a bench, and lost sight shortly thereafter, did not prove a compensable accidental injury. Roccaforte v. State Furniture Co., 142 Neb. 768, 7 N.W.2d 656 (1943).

Where employee was cranking a car, which was ordinarily incident to his employment, and no unforeseen or unexpected event happened suddenly or violently, a compensable accidental injury did not occur even though the exertion, combined with preexisting disease, produced disability. Rose v. City of Fairmont, 140 Neb. 550, 300 N.W. 574 (1941).

The word accident as used in the statute shall, unless a different meaning is clearly indicated from context, be construed to mean an unexpected or unforeseen event happening suddenly or violently with or without human fault and producing at the time objective symptoms of the injury. Shamp v. Landy Clark Co., 134 Neb. 73, 277 N.W. 802 (1938).

Trivial accidents which did not aggravate or affect progress of an occupational disease cannot be made basis for recovery. Svoboda v. Mandler, 133 Neb. 433, 275 N.W. 599 (1937).

Slipping and falling into river, from which employee is alleged to have caught cold, is not an accident within definition of the statute. Lang v. Gage County Electric Co., 133 Neb. 388, 275 N.W. 462 (1937).

Being shot by a highwayman while traveling in course of employment is an accident within meaning of the statute. Goodwin v. Omaha Printing Co., 131 Neb. 212, 267 N.W. 419 (1936).

Snow blindness is an accident within meaning of compensation law. Hayes v. McMullen, 128 Neb. 432, 259 N.W. 165 (1935).

Definition of accident is quoted in opinion relating to case where injury and preexisting disease combined to produce disability. Skelly Oil Co. v. Gaugenbaugh, 119 Neb. 698, 230 N.W. 688 (1930).

Death of employee was the result of accident. Kanscheit v. Garrett Laundry Co., 101 Neb. 702, 164 N.W. 708 (1917); Young v. Western Furniture & Mfg. Co., 101 Neb. 696, 164 N.W. 712 (1917).

Injury was result of accident. Manning v. Pomerene, 101 Neb. 127, 162 N.W. 492 (1917).

Share This Article: