Nebraska Supreme Court affirms Worker Compensation award for asbestos induced mesothelioma that plaintiff's doctors diagnosed more than 20 years after his retirement from the employer but orders no disability payments to plaintiff's widow.

No nod to Daubert in this opinion with shaky evidence for the plaintiff. Olivotto v. DeMarco Bros. Co., S-05-1526.

The plaintiff was a concrete and terrazzo installer for the defendant until his retirement in 1980. Although he did not work with asbestos, former co workers testified that asbestos was around their work areas. He did not claim any occupational injury or disease. He died in 2004 from mesothelioma.

His widow sought worker compensation benefits from the employer. The worker compensation court awarded disability and medical costs for the asbestos exposure. The review panel affirmed the award but reversed the disability benefits. Supreme Court affirms the award, but reverses the extra award for out of pocket expenses to the widow and agrees that the widow should not get any disability payments.

Without mentioning Daubert or Nebraska cases following its rule, the Supreme Court restates its relaxed rule for admitting expert testimony on medical causation in worker compensation cases. Basically if the doctor can say anything to justify his conclusions, the court may let it in.

In a workers' compensation case, a witness must qualify as an expert and the testimony must assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. The witness must have a factual basis for the opinion, and the testimony must be relevant.

Veatch v. American Tool, 267 N eb. 711, 676 N .W.2d 730 (2004). A determination concerning the sufficiency of the foundation for an expert's opinion is left to the discretion of the trial court. We conclude there was sufficient evidence to support the medical opinions of Drs. Connor and Deschamps, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such evidence."



We're here to help!

We live by our creed of "helping those who need it most" and have helped thousands of clients get the justice they desperately needed and deserved. If you feel you have a case or just have questions please contact us for a free consultation. There is no risk and no fees unless we win for you.

Fields marked    may be required for submission.
  1. I'm an attorney

Ban Asbestos Now Act of 2017 proposed in Senate

At the end of October, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced it would be adjusting the...

EPA limits reach of toxic chemical evaluations

The EPA is reneging on promises to evaluate some of the most dangerous chemicals used by the public,...

Prevention remains the only way to end mesothelioma...

Mesothelioma is a deadly cancer that can affect the lining of the heart, the lining of the abdomen or,...

Controversial FACT Act headed to House floor for vote

The Furthering Asbestos Claim Transparency Act of 2017 (FACT Act) or H.R. 906, uses the guise of...
asbestos dust hazard perimeter tape

Canada joins countries implementing asbestos bans

Asbestos, a group of fibrous silicate minerals, is a known carcinogen and is closely linked to the...

Asbestos in schools poses mesothelioma risk. Who is...

According to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), approximately 15 million students and 1.4...

Number one firm

I really appreciate the law firm, they look into every detail, they review everything with you not just once but several times to make sure everything is correct. They are a very good law firm and I would highly recommend them. They'll always call you back when you call with questions. They're number one in my book.

—Melva