Background
Thuraiya Alhatel alleged that repetitive work at Smithfield Foods’ Nebraska processing plant injured both shoulders. Smithfield accepted her right-shoulder injury as compensable, and Alhatel underwent rotator-cuff surgery in January 2021. After returning to modified work, she left Smithfield in October 2021 and later was diagnosed with a left rotator-cuff tear.
Alhatel contended that the original right-shoulder injury caused her to overuse her left arm, making the left-shoulder condition a compensable consequence of the accepted injury. Her treating orthopedist, Dr. David Samani, initially supported that theory but changed his opinion after learning more about her work history, including periods when she was off work or performing modified duties. The Workers’ Compensation Court awarded permanent partial disability and future medical expenses for the right shoulder but found that Alhatel had not proved work-related causation for the left shoulder. It also found that her right shoulder reached maximum medical improvement on October 5, 2021.
The Court’s Holding
The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed. It recognized that a later injury may be compensable when it is a direct and natural consequence of an original work injury, but held that Alhatel still had to prove the causal connection through persuasive expert medical testimony. The compensation court was entitled to credit Dr. Samani’s later deposition testimony over his earlier, contradictory opinions, particularly because the earlier opinions rested on inaccurate information about Alhatel’s post-surgical employment and duties.
The court also rejected Alhatel’s challenges to Smithfield’s communications with Dr. Samani, concluding that the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act permits employers to obtain relevant medical information from treating providers. It found no clear error in the compensation court’s treatment of the functional capacity evaluation or its adoption of Dr. Robert Dugas’ October 5, 2021, maximum-medical-improvement date. The court declined to consider additional evidentiary arguments that Alhatel discussed but did not assign as error.
Key Takeaways
- A condition following a compensable workplace injury may itself be compensable, but the claimant must prove that it was a direct and natural consequence of the original injury.
- A compensation court may choose among conflicting expert opinions, and an opinion based on an inaccurate factual history may receive less weight.
- Nebraska law permits an employer to communicate with a treating provider about medical information relevant to a workers’ compensation claim.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores that chronology and accurate work-history evidence can determine whether a claimed secondary injury is compensable. A temporal progression from one injury to another does not replace the need for reliable expert proof of causation.
It also reinforces the deferential standard governing appellate review of Workers’ Compensation Court findings: credibility choices, expert-weight determinations, and maximum-medical-improvement findings generally stand unless clearly wrong.