Abbott v. Gould, Inc., 232 Neb. 907, 443 N.W.2d 591 (Neb. 1989)
Facts: Several former employees and personal representatives (Plaintiffs) of Gould, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee), sued to recover damages against their former employer and Robert J. Fitzgibbons, Sr., M.D (Defendant) based on allegations that they were responsible for damages based on their conduct. The Defendant demurred in part, on the grounds that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the matter. The Defendant also operated a secondary lead refining and smelting plant. It is the Plaintiff’s belief that the Defendant knowingly misrepresented the facts to its employees, refusing to acknowledge that their work environment was reasonably safe. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the devices and clothing supplied to them by the Defendant and the inadequate safety …show more content…
Holding: Yes. The Plaintiff’s allegations against Gould are within the domain of the Nebraska state's Workers' Compensation Act. In regards to the allegations, the district court is lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
Reasoning: It is the Plaintiffs' constitutional arguments that under the Workers’ Compensation Act, all personal injuries proven to have been caused by an occupational disease that arises out of and in the course of their employment with the Defendant. This included both the initial effects caused by the work environment and any consequent effects triggered after of the same. To read the compensation act of this jurisdiction in such a way as to require employers not only to provide workers' compensation benefits but also to defend and respond in
Facts: Several former employees and personal representatives (Plaintiffs) of Gould, Inc. (Defendant/Appellee), sued to recover damages against their former employer and Robert J. Fitzgibbons, Sr., M.D (Defendant) based on allegations that they were responsible for damages based on their conduct. The Defendant demurred in part, on the grounds that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction in the matter. The Defendant also operated a secondary lead refining and smelting plant. It is the Plaintiff’s belief that the Defendant knowingly misrepresented the facts to its employees, refusing to acknowledge that their work environment was reasonably safe. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the devices and clothing supplied to them by the Defendant and the inadequate safety …show more content…
Holding: Yes. The Plaintiff’s allegations against Gould are within the domain of the Nebraska state's Workers' Compensation Act. In regards to the allegations, the district court is lacking subject matter jurisdiction.
Reasoning: It is the Plaintiffs' constitutional arguments that under the Workers’ Compensation Act, all personal injuries proven to have been caused by an occupational disease that arises out of and in the course of their employment with the Defendant. This included both the initial effects caused by the work environment and any consequent effects triggered after of the same. To read the compensation act of this jurisdiction in such a way as to require employers not only to provide workers' compensation benefits but also to defend and respond in