No proceedings for compensation for an injury under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act shall be maintained unless a notice of the injury shall have been given to the employer as soon as practicable after the happening thereof; Provided, that all disputed claims for compensation or benefits shall be first submitted to the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court. The notice shall be in writing and shall state in ordinary language the time, place, and cause of the injury. It shall be signed by the person injured, or by a person in his or her behalf, or in the event of his or her death, by his or her legal representative or by a person in his or her behalf. The notice shall be served upon the employer or an agent thereof. Such service may be made by delivering the notice to the person on whom it is to be served, or leaving it at his or her residence or place of business, or by sending it by certified or registered mail addressed to the person or corporation on whom it is to be served at his or her last-known residence or place of business. A notice given pursuant to this section shall not be held invalid or insufficient by reason of any inaccuracy in stating the time, place, or cause of the injury, unless it is shown that it was the intention to mislead, and the employer, or the insurance company carrying such risk, as the case may be, was in fact misled thereby. Want of such written notice shall not be a bar to proceedings under the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, if it be shown that the employer had notice or knowledge of the injury.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
35
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 1932–2023 · leading case:
Risor v. Nebraska Boiler, 765 N.W.2d 170 (Neb. 2009).
Risor v. Nebraska Boiler, 765 N.W.2d 170 (Neb. 2009).
· cites it 8× “§ 48-133 (Reissue 2004). The judge reasoned that Risor's supervisors had accommodated his hearing loss even before 1988.”
Williamson v. Werner Enter., Inc., 682 N.W.2d 723 (Neb. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 19× “ASSIGNMENT OF ERROR Williamson alleges that the court erred in interpreting and applying Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-133 (Reissue 1998), the statute requiring that notice of injury be given as soon as practicable.”
Scott v. Pepsi Cola Co., 541 N.W.2d 49 (Neb. 1995).
· cites it 11× “The review panel found that Scott had given proper notice under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-133 (Reissue 1993). Pepsi and Lumbermens appealed from the order of the review panel, and under the authority granted to us by Neb.”
Thompson v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc., 375 N.W.2d 601 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 9× “Monfort claims the Workmen’s Compensation Court committed error (1) by finding that Thompson’s injury was the result of a compensable accident on September 16, 1983, and (2) by not finding that Thompson failed to give written notice of injury as required by Neb. Rev. Stat. §…”
Osteen v. A. C. & S., Inc., 307 N.W.2d 514 (Neb. 1981).
· cites it 3× “Those limitations, appearing at Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-133 and 48-137 (Reissue 1968), bar claims for compensation not filed within 6 months of the occurrence of an injury or within 6 months after death and suits for compensation not filed within 1 year after the accident.”
Gilbert v. Metro. Utils. Dist. of Omaha, 57 N.W.2d 770 (Neb. 1953).
· cites it 8× “With reference to the first assignment of error, section 48-133, R. R. S. 1943, provides: “No proceeding for compensation for an injury under this act shall be maintained unless a notice of the injury shall have been given to the employer as soon as practicable after the…”
Kaiser v. Metro. Util. Dist., 26 Neb. 38 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 3× “MUD argues that Pawoll was not a supervisor, since he did not have the authority to grant vacations, conduct employee reviews, grant time off of work, discipline employees, or give awards.”
Behrens v. Am. Stores Packing Co., 449 N.W.2d 197 (Neb. 1989).
· cites it 2× “With respect to the first assignment of error, § 48-134 provides: After an employee has given notice of an injury, as *28 provided in section 48-133, and from time to time thereafter during the continuance of his or her disability, he or she shall, if so requested by the…”
Astuto v. V. Ray Gould Co., 242 N.W. 375 (Neb. 1932).
· cites it 2× “The appellant takes exceptions to each and all of the findings of the district court. It is insisted that the court erred in refusing to dismiss appellee’s petition for failure to make claim for compensation within six months of the disability, as required by section 48-133,…”
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.