Nebraska Revised Statutes
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141 (2026)
Lump-sum settlement; finality; periodic payment; modification
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov
JustiaChapter on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
All amounts paid by an employer or by an insurance company carrying such risk, as the case may be, and received by the employee or his or her dependents by lump-sum payments pursuant to section 48-139 shall be final and not subject to readjustment if the lump-sum settlement is in conformity with the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Act, unless the settlement is procured by fraud, but the amount of any agreement or award payable periodically may be modified as follows: (1) At any time by agreement of the parties with the approval of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court; or (2) if the parties cannot agree, then at any time after six months from the date of the agreement or award, an application may be made by either party on the ground of increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury or that the condition of a dependent has changed as to age or marriage or by reason of the death of the dependent. In such case, the same procedure shall be followed as in sections 48-173 to 48-185 in case of disputed claim for compensation.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 75
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1931–2024 · leading case: Foote v. O'Neill Packing, 632 N.W.2d 313 (Neb. 2001).
Foote v. O'Neill Packing, 632 N.W.2d 313 (Neb. 2001). “*471 We held that claims for medical expenses filed more than 2 years after the last payment of compensation were barred by § 48-137 in the absence of evidence of a material increase in the claimant’s disability which would permit the claimant to seek an increase in benefits…”
Parks v. Hy-Vee, 307 Neb. 927 (Neb. 2020). “Hy-Vee classifies the further award as a modification order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141 (2) (Reissue 2010).”
Moss v. C&A Indus., 25 Neb. Ct. App. 877 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “The court stated that Kirkland could recover benefits for a right knee injury"if he can prove his right knee injury / condition stems from his compensable left leg injury, low back injury, neck injury or hip injury" and if he proves the requirements for a modification under Neb.…”
Thornton v. Grand Island Contract Carriers, 634 N.W.2d 794 (Neb. 2001). “In Snipes , we held that claims for medical expenses filed more than 2 years after the last payment of compensation were barred by § 48-137 in the absence of evidence of a material increase in the claimant’s disability, which would permit the claimant to seek an increase in…”
Green v. Drivers Mgmt., Inc., 639 N.W.2d 94 (Neb. 2002). “The only Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Act provisions that permit a judge to modify or change previously issued orders are Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 48-141 and 48-180 (Reissue 1998).”
Bronzynski v. Model Elec., Inc., 707 N.W.2d 46 (Neb. Ct. App. 2005). “We agree with the review panel and find that the trial court erred in finding an increase in incapacity and, therefore, in awarding an increase in permanent partial disability benefits.”
Krause v. Five Star Quality Care, Inc., 301 Neb. 612 (Neb. 2018). “32 Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141 (Reissue 2010) (emphasis supplied).”
Starks v. Cornhusker Packing Co., 573 N.W.2d 757 (Neb. 1998). “Nebraska Methodist Hosp., 245 Neb. 161 , 511 N.W.2d 762 (1994).”
Davis v. Crete Carrier Corp., 725 N.W.2d 562 (Neb. Ct. App. 2006). “The review panel stated: The [Appellants] maintain that they are only required to pay 300 weeks of benefits and that the effective method to terminate a running award of benefits pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141 has been satisfied by the stipulation and order of the parties…”
Fay v. Dowding, Dowding & Dowding, 623 N.W.2d 287 (Neb. 2001). “Section 48-141 permits, inter alia, the Workers’ Compensation Court to modify an award “on the ground of increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury.”
Sheldon-Zimbelman v. Bryan Mem'l Hosp., 604 N.W.2d 396 (Neb. 2000). “411, 414 , 558 N.W.2d 40, 43 (1997). We have previously held that the only authority the Workers’ Compensation Court possesses to modify orders or awards is that provided by Neb.”
Davis v. Crete Carrier Corp., 740 N.W.2d 598 (Neb. 2007). “4 The Court of Appeals held that the November 1993 order, based upon the stipulation of the parties, modified the duration of the prior award and that, therefore, no specific application was necessary because the award was modified by agreement of the parties as set forth in…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141(1) — 1 case
Holmes v. Chief Indus., Inc., 747 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. Ct. App. 2008).
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141(2) — 7 cases
Parks v. Hy-Vee, 307 Neb. 927 (Neb. 2020). “Hy-Vee classifies the further award as a modification order pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-141 (2) (Reissue 2010).”
Sheldon-Zimbelman v. Bryan Mem'l Hosp., 604 N.W.2d 396 (Neb. 2000). “411, 414 , 558 N.W.2d 40, 43 (1997). We have previously held that the only authority the Workers’ Compensation Court possesses to modify orders or awards is that provided by Neb.”
Fay v. Dowding, Dowding & Dowding, 623 N.W.2d 287 (Neb. 2001). “Section 48-141 permits, inter alia, the Workers’ Compensation Court to modify an award “on the ground of increase or decrease of incapacity due solely to the injury.”
Moss v. C&A Indus., 25 Neb. Ct. App. 877 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “The court stated that Kirkland could recover benefits for a right knee injury"if he can prove his right knee injury / condition stems from his compensable left leg injury, low back injury, neck injury or hip injury" and if he proves the requirements for a modification under Neb.…”
Rader v. Speer Auto (Neb. 2013).
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.