McNamee v. Marriott Reservation Ctr.

comply with the housing quality standards regulations under
§ 982.406. Therefore, even if we accept all of the plaintiffs’
allegations in their complaint as true and draw all reasonable
inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, federal law clearly states
that the plaintiffs have no private right to bring an action
against oHA to recover damages. We hold that the federal law
regarding Section 8 housing was clearly meant to be overriding
and that therefore, federal law preempts any Nebraska law on
the matter. Therefore, under Nebraska law, a Section 8 tenant
may not bring an action against a public housing authority for
failure to inspect rental properties and enforce the housing
quality standards.
In summary, it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiffs
cannot prove any set of facts which would entitle them to relief.
See Dennes v. Dunning, 14 Neb. App. 934, 719 N.W.2d 737
(2006). Therefore, the trial court did not err in granting oHA’s
rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause
of action.
CoNCLUSIoN
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the trial court
did not err in determining that the federal rules governing
Section 8 housing bar a private cause of action against a public
housing authority. because of our holding, we find it unneces-
sary to determine whether the sole cause of the injury to the
plaintiffs was an unforeseeable criminal act. The trial court’s
order dismissing the plaintiffs’ amended complaint with preju-
dice is affirmed.
A ffirmed .
mArTA mcnAmee , APPellAnT, v . mArrioTT
reservATion cenTer , APPellee .
747 N.W.2d 30
Filed April 1, 2008. 	No. A-07-994.
1. Workers’ Compensation: Appeal and Error. Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 48-185 (Reissue 2004), an appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside
a Workers’ Compensation Court decision only when (1) the compensation court
626 	16 NebRASkA APPeLLATe RePoRTS
Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/01/2026 04:16 AM CST

acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment, order, or award was
procured by fraud; (3) there is not sufficient competent evidence in the record to
warrant the making of the order, judgment, or award; or (4) the findings of fact
by the compensation court do not support the order or award.
2. ____: ____. In determining whether to affirm, modify, reverse, or set aside a judg-
ment of the Workers’ Compensation Court review panel, a higher appellate court
reviews the findings of the trial judge who conducted the original hearing.
3. Courts: Evidence: Appeal and Error. In an appellate review of a matter
appealed from a county court to a district court, a higher appellate court can con-
sider only such evidence as was presented to the district court in its intermediate
review of the county court judgment.
4. Records: Pleadings: Appeal and Error. Absent a complete bill of exceptions,
the only issue before the court on appeal is whether the pleadings are sufficient
to support the judgment.
Appeal from the Workers’ Compensation Court. Affirmed.
Marta McNamee, pro se.
Jerald L. Rauterkus, of erickson & Sederstrom, P.C., for
appellee.
sievers , cArlson, and moore, Judges.
cArlson, Judge.
INTRoDUCTIoN
Marta McNamee appeals from an order of the review panel
of the Nebraska Workers’ Compensation Court, affirming the
trial court’s dismissal of McNamee’s petition with prejudice.
For the reasons set forth below, we affirm. Pursuant to this
court’s authority under Neb. Ct. R. of Prac. 11b(1) (rev. 2006),
this case was ordered submitted without oral argument.
bACkGRoUND
In March 2006, McNamee filed a petition seeking benefits
for injuries she sustained on January 2, 2003, while working for
Marriott Reservation Center. Trial on McNamee’s petition was
held on october 12, 2006.
In an order filed December 26, 2006, the trial court dis-
missed McNamee’s petition with prejudice, stating that it
did not believe that McNamee had suffered any temporary
or permanent impairment or disability that would entitle her
McNAMee v. MARRIoTT ReSeRVATIoN CTR. 	627
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 626

to payment of benefits under Nebraska law. McNamee then
appealed to the review panel.
In an order filed August 13, 2007, the review panel affirmed
the trial court’s dismissal. The review panel stated that McNamee
had failed to request the preparation of the bill of exceptions
in accordance with Workers’ Comp. Ct. R. of Proc. 13 and 14
(2006). The review panel found that in the absence of a bill of
exceptions, it was limited to reviewing the pleadings to deter-
mine whether they supported the judgment entered. The review
panel stated that it had reviewed the pleadings and found
them sufficient to support the judgment entered. Therefore, the
review panel affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing
McNamee’s petition. McNamee appeals.
ASSIGNMeNT oF eRRoR
on appeal, McNamee contends that the review panel erred
in affirming the trial court’s order dismissing her petition
with prejudice.
STANDARD oF ReVIeW
[1,2] Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 48-185 (Reissue 2004),
an appellate court may modify, reverse, or set aside a Workers’
Compensation Court decision only when (1) the compensation
court acted without or in excess of its powers; (2) the judgment,
order, or award was procured by fraud; (3) there is not sufficient
competent evidence in the record to warrant the making of the
order, judgment, or award; or (4) the findings of fact by the
compensation court do not support the order or award. Olivotto
v. DeMarco Bros. Co., 273 Neb. 672, 732 N.W.2d 354 (2007).
In determining whether to affirm, modify, reverse, or set aside
a judgment of the Workers’ Compensation Court review panel,
a higher appellate court reviews the findings of the trial judge
who conducted the original hearing. Id.
ANALySIS
on appeal, McNamee contends that the review panel erred
in affirming the trial court’s order dismissing her petition with
prejudice. As noted above, the review panel found that it could
not review the bill of exceptions in deciding McNamee’s appeal,
because McNamee failed to request that the bill of exceptions
628 	16 NebRASkA APPeLLATe RePoRTS

be prepared. Rules 13 and 14 of the rules of procedure of the
Workers’ Compensation Court require that an appellant file a
request for preparation of the bill of exceptions at the time of
the filing of the appeal.
As a result of McNamee’s failure to request the bill of excep-
tions, the review panel reviewed the pleadings to determine
whether they supported the judgment, and because they did, the
review panel affirmed the trial court’s dismissal. McNamee has
appealed to this court, and in her appeal, McNamee requested
that the bill of exceptions be prepared. The bill of exceptions
has been filed with this court. The question is whether we can
review the bill of exceptions in this appeal given that the review
panel did not have the bill of exceptions before it.
[3] our review of Nebraska law shows that this issue has not
been addressed in a workers’ compensation case. We have held
that in an appellate review of a matter appealed from a county
court to a district court, this court can consider only such evi-
dence as was presented to the district court in its intermediate
review of the county court judgment. State v. Trampe, 12 Neb.
App. 139, 668 N.W.2d 281 (2003), citing State v. Cardona, 10
Neb. App. 815, 639 N.W.2d 653 (2002).
We see no reason why this rule would not apply to the work-
ers’ compensation context in which an appellant must appeal
from the trial court to the review panel and then to this court or
the Nebraska Supreme Court. otherwise, an appellant who had
not complied with the rules governing preparation of the bill
of exceptions in front of the review panel would be allowed, in
effect, to bypass the review panel and go directly to this court
for a full review. We do not consider this a proper result, and
for this reason, we conclude that we cannot consider the bill of
exceptions in our review of McNamee’s appeal.
[4] As the review panel stated, absent a complete bill of
exceptions, the only issue before the court on appeal is whether
the pleadings are sufficient to support the judgment. Norwest
Bank Neb. v. Bellevue Bridge Comm., 7 Neb. App. 750, 585
N.W.2d 505 (1998). Having reviewed the pleadings, we deter-
mine that they are sufficient to support the judgment, and there-
fore, we affirm the order of the review panel affirming the trial
court’s dismissal of McNamee’s case with prejudice.
McNAMee v. MARRIoTT ReSeRVATIoN CTR. 	629
Cite as 16 Neb. App. 626

CoNCLUSIoN
After reviewing the record, we conclude that the review panel
did not err in affirming the trial court’s dismissal. Therefore,
we affirm the review panel’s order in its entirety.
A ffirmed .
630 	16 NebRASkA APPeLLATe RePoRTS