In Eliker v. D.H. Merritt & Sons, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that workmen's compensation should be denied to a claimant who offered proof that he received a back injury while engaged in his usual work activities, but who failed to show exactly what he was doing at the time of the injury. The court found that the claimant had failed to satisfy the requirement that the injury arise out of and in the course of the employment. This represents a new interpretation of the requirement that the employee's injury occur "in the course of employment." The new interpretation introduces factors which before were relevant only to the requirement that the employee experience an "accident." In reaching its decision, the court reviewed the trial court's findings of fact, and thus departed from the established standard of review for workmen's compensation cases. This note examines the Eliker decision in the context of prior case law and statutory amendments to determine the effect of the holding on substantive and procedural aspects of workmen's compensation in Nebraska.
Workmen's Compensation—A New "In the Course of Employment" Concept: Eliker v. D.H. Merritt & Sons, 195 Neb. 154, 237 N.W.2d 130 (1975),
56 Neb. L. Rev. 216
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol56/iss1/9