Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 48
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-130 (2026)

Compensation; savings; insurance; other benefits; not factors

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

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.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 13 cases, 1934–2018 · leading case: Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311 (Neb. 2018).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Bower v. Eaton Corp., 301 Neb. 311 (Neb. 2018). · cites it 3× “45 Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-130 and 48-147 (Reissue 2010) prohibit the compensation court from taking into consideration when determining workers' compensation any benefits independent of the act paid to the employee.”
Dawes v. Wittrock Sandblasting & Painting, Inc., 667 N.W.2d 167 (Neb. 2003). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-130 (Reissue 1998) provides: 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…”
Burns v. Nielsen, 732 N.W.2d 640 (Neb. 2007). “…Insurance, supra note 7. 35 Shipler v. General Motors Corp., 271 Neb. 194 , 710 N.W.2d 807 (2006). See, also, §§ 48-130 and 48-147.”
Bauers v. City of Lincoln, 514 N.W.2d 625 (Neb. 1994). · cites it 3× “I, §§ 3 and 25; (2) violate the Nebraska Wage Payment and Collection Act; and (3) deprive them of property rights and remedies that they are entitled to pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-130 (Reissue 1988) of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act.”
Nunn v. Texaco Trading & Transp., Inc., 523 N.W.2d 705 (Neb. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “The review panel also found that Texaco was not entitled to such credit, but based its finding on Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-130 and 48-147 (Reissue 1993).”
Black v. Sioux City Foundry Co., 401 N.W.2d 679 (Neb. 1987). · cites it 2× “The compensation court found that “compensation,” as used in Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-130 (Reissue 1984), refers not only to weekly payments of indemnity but also refers to medical and hospital expenses.”
Novotny v. City of Omaha, 299 N.W.2d 757 (Neb. 1980). · cites it 3× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-130 (Reissue 1978) provides: “No savings or insurance of the injured employee, or any contribution made by him to any benefit fund or protective association independent of this act shall be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be paid…”
City of Lincoln v. Steffensmeyer, 279 N.W. 272 (Neb. 1938). · cites it 3× “In addition to the foregoing sections of the workmen’s compensation act, section 48-130, Comp. St. 1929, makes this exception in favor of the employee: “No savings or insurance of the injured employee, or any contribution made by him to any benefit fund or protective association…”
Shandy v. City of Omaha, 255 N.W. 477 (Neb. 1934). · cites it 2× “Thus section 48-130, Comp. St. 1929, provides: “No savings or insurance of the injured employee, or any contribution made by him to any benefit fund or protective association independent of this article shall be taken into consideration in determining the compensation to be paid…”
Maxey v. Fremont Dep't of Utils., 371 N.W.2d 294 (Neb. 1985). “” § 48-130. The Legislature further separated the benefits payable under the act from other benefits to which an employee might be entitled when it enacted the following provision: Nothing in this act shall affect any existing contract for employer’s liability insurance, or…”
Warsocki v. City of Omaha, 510 N.W.2d 446 (Neb. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 2× “See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-130 and 48-147 (Reissue 1978).”
Thomas v. Lincoln Pub. Schs., 622 N.W.2d 705 (Neb. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 6× “However, Thomas points to the language of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-130 (Reissue 1998), which provides: “[N]or 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.”
Show all 13 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.