48-130. Compensation; savings; insurance; other benefits; not factors.
No savings or insurance of the injured employee or any contribution made by him or her to any benefit fund or protective association independent of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act shall be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be paid thereunder; nor shall benefits derived from any other source than those paid or caused to be paid by the employer as herein provided be considered in fixing compensation under such act.
Source
Annotations
Pursuant to this section, the payment of private insurance benefits does not entitle an employer to reduce an employee's benefits due under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act. Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, 266 Neb. 526, 667 N.W.2d 167 (2003).
Pension benefits made under city ordinance did not affect the right of plaintiff to claim and receive under Workmen's Compensation Act. Novotny v. City of Omaha, 207 Neb. 535, 299 N.W.2d 757 (1980).
Receipt of workmen's compensation does not bar city fireman from right to fireman's pension. City of Lincoln v. Steffensmeyer, 134 Neb. 613, 279 N.W. 272 (1938).
Receipt by city fireman of pension will not bar widow from compensation under Workmen's Compensation Act. Shandy v. City of Omaha, 127 Neb. 406, 255 N.W. 477 (1934).
Question whether pension paid by city to widow of deceased policeman would be benefits derived from any other source, was discussed, but not decided. Good v. City of Omaha, 102 Neb. 654, 168 N.W. 639 (1918).
No provision in the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act limits an employee's ability to receive workers' compensation benefits because he or she is simultaneously receiving unemployment benefits. Hernandez v. JBS USA, 20 Neb. App. 634, 828 N.W.2d 765 (2013).
An employer's exercise of its statutory right to pursue its subrogation claim against a tort-feasor who injured its employee is not "causing" the payment of workers' compensation. Thomas v. Lincoln Public Schools, 9 Neb. App. 965, 622 N.W.2d 705 (2001).
Payment of private insurance benefits, even if made pursuant to an employer-funded plan, does not entitle an employer to reduce an employee's benefits due under the Workers' Compensation Act. Nunn v. Texaco Trading & Transp., 3 Neb. App. 101, 523 N.W.2d 705 (1994).
Copyright ©2024 LegalFix. All rights reserved. LegalFix is not a law firm, is not licensed to practice law, and does not provide legal advice, services, or representation. The information on this website is an overview of the legal plans you can purchase—or that may be provided by your employer as an employee benefit or by your credit union or other membership group as a membership benefit.
LegalFix provides its members with easy access to affordable legal services through a network of independent law firms. LegalFix, its corporate entity, and its officers, directors, employees, agents, and contractors do not provide legal advice, services, or representation—directly or indirectly.
The articles and information on the site are not legal advice and should not be relied upon—they are for information purposes only. You should become a LegalFix member to get legal services from one of our network law firms.
You should not disclose confidential or potentially incriminating information to LegalFix—you should only communicate such information to your network law firm.
The benefits and legal services described in the LegalFix legal plans are not always available in all states or with all plans. See the legal plan Benefit Overview and the more comprehensive legal plan contract during checkout for coverage details in your state.
Use of this website, the purchase of legal plans, and access to the LegalFix networks of law firms are subject to the LegalFix Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.