Workmen\u27s Compensation—A New In the Course of Employment Concept: \u3ci\u3eEliker v. D.H. Merritt & Sons\u3c/i\u3e, 195 Neb. 154, 237 N.W.2d 130 (1975)

In Eliker v. D.H. Merritt & Sons, the Nebraska Supreme Court held that workmen\u27s 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\u27s 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\u27s findings of fact, and thus departed from the established standard of review for workmen\u27s 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\u27s compensation in Nebraska