The Supreme Court of Nebraska ruled Friday that the state workers' compensation court erred in making a decision that was unclear about what an employer and its insurer must do to provide a disabled worker with an accessible home. injured while working for MBC Construction Co. and finally had to amputate the left leg. Lawsuits arose from Lewis' request that MBC Construction Co. and its insurers would build affordable housing for him, as documented in Allen Michael Lewis v. MBC Construction Co., Inc. and Carolina Casualty Ins. Co., filed in Lincoln.
The Compensation Court rejected Lewis' proposal for a $ 400,000 house, four bedrooms and three garages, but found certain accessibility features "reasonable, necessary and required because of the nature of his injury." The employer ordered an existing home to be modified "or possibly build a unit ”to meet Lewis' requirements for accessibility.
Both parties appealed. new construction "unreasonable and unnecessary", according to the documents, that a new home may be necessary, but that the previous decision was unclear who would have to pay all the costs associated with it, including insurance and taxes.
"The order is confusing and each party's commitments are unclear, "the State Supreme Court wrote. Upon request, it asked the Compensation Court to" state a decision based on the existing document, clarify which available alternative housing options to follow and in what order, and it should be clarified in the conclusions (employer's) financial obligations under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act with respect to finally received housing.
Two judges said at the same time that the legislature should address "important general issues regarding the compensability of accessible housing for injured workers."