is simply no evidence that would indicate that anyone, including Barnett and Collins, acted “in avoidance of correction.” Notwithstanding the court’s interpretation of Rival, the court recognizes that in John Blue Co. v. Dempster Mill Mfg. Co., 172 F.Supp. 23 (D.Neb.1958), upon which the Rival court relied, the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska distinguished between errors resulting from inadvertence, accident, or mistake and those resulting from errors in judgment, and held that only the former are correctable under section 256. However, as Ogil-vie and Henkel point out, John Blue and its progeny have been rejected by the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals (now the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). In re Schmidt, 293 F.2d 274, 278-79 (C.C.P.A.1961) (<HOLDING>). Because the Court of Appeals for the Federal
holding that the workers compensation act is to be liberally construed in the employees favor and any doubt in its construction is thus resolved in favor of the employee holding that because adjudication of cases on their merits is favored rule 60b should be given a liberal construction holding that  116 and 256 should be given a liberal construction in favor of applicants holding that if there is only one construction that will permit all parts of the deed to be given effect it should be followed recognizing that the constitutional right to appeal must be given a practical construction