7 Neb. Ct. App. 595 - Bryson v. Vickers, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1998
Citation profile
2
cited by 2 later decisions
1
states following
February 2001
most recently cited
2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Cords v. City of Lincoln · Village of Winside v. Jackson · Sherard v. Bethphage Mission, Inc. · Snipes v. Vickers · Winn v. Geo. A. Hormel & Co.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) For injuries occurring before December 1, 1997: (a) If an employee who has a preexisting permanent partial disability whether from compensable injury or otherwise, which is or is likely to be a hindrance or obstacle to his or her obtaining employment or obtaining reemployment if the employee should become unemployed and which was known to the employer prior to the occurrence of a subsequent compensable injury, receives a subsequent compensable injury resulting in additional permanent partial or in permanent total disability so that the degree or percentage of disability caused by the combined disabilities is substantially greater than that which would have resulted from the last injury, considered alone and of itself, and if the employee is entitled to receive compensation on the basis of the combined disabilities, the employer at the time of the last injury shall be liable only for the degree or percentage of disability which would have resulted from the last injury had there been no preexisting disability. For the additional disability, the employee shall be compensated out of ... the Second Injury Fund ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It is clear that the employer does not have to know exactly what the employee’s prior condition is in medical terms. . . . Since the second injury principle applies only to preexisting permanent conditions, the employer would have to know, not just that the employee had some abnormal condition, but that the condition was permanent in character.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.