S-25-0880 Christine Thiele (Appellant) v. Select Medical Corporation d/b/a Select Specialty Hospital & Liberty Insurance, Inc. (Appellees)
Appeal from the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, Judge Daniel R. Fridrich
Attorneys: Douglas R. Novotny (Novotny Law, LLC for Appellant) and Robert Kinney-Walker (Law Office of James Nubel for Appellees)
Workers’ Compensation: Summary Judgment
Proceedings below: Appellant was employed as a nurse for Appellee, and she tested positive for COVID-19. She then petitioned for compensation under the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act, which granted Appellee’s motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed and remanded the matter for further hearing. Thiele v. Select Med. Corp., 316 Neb. 338 (2024). On remand, the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court sustained Appellee’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed Appellant’s petition.
Issues: Appellant assigns the following errors: 1) The Workers’ Compensation Court erred when it sustained Appellee’s motion for summary judgment by finding that COVID-19 is not an Occupational Disease as defined by the Workers’ Compensation Act; 2) The Workers’ Compensation Court erred by finding that COVID-19 was not a disease that was unique to Appellant’s employment in April of 2020; 3) The Workers’ Compensation Court erred in finding that COVID-19 was an ordinary disease of life in April of 2020; 4) The Workers’ Compensation Court erred in failing to view the evidence and all reasonable inferences that may be derived from the evidence, in the light most favorable to Appellant; 5) The Workers’ Compensation Court erred in failing to broadly and liberally construe Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-151 and the definition of occupational disease to accomplish the beneficent purpose of the Act; 6) The Workers’ Compensation Court erred in dismissing Appellant’s petition with prejudice as it defeats the beneficent purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act; and 7) The Workers’ Compensation Court erred in dismissing the case with prejudice, without a determination as to whether COVID-19 can be regarded as an accident, as it goes against the beneficent purpose of the act, affects Appellant’s substantial rights and would result in a miscarriage of justice.