Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this medical malpractice case, Husband alleged that Defendants, several physicians, a hospital and others, caused his Wife's death by negligently failing to administer an expensive drug to treat her hypertension. Because the drug needed to be administered indefinitely and could cause deadly symptoms if its administration was interrupted, Wife's treating physicians decided not to administer the drug until Wife's insurer approved it or another source of payment could be found. Wife died before either happened. The jury returned a general verdict for Defendant. Husband then filed a motion for a new trial, which the court granted based on its conclusion that Defendants' expert testimony was inconsistent with the standard of care. At issue on appeal was whether under the circumstances of this case, an expert medical witness is permitted to opine that under the customary standard of care, a physician should consider the health risks to a patient who may be unable to pay for continued treatment. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's order granting a new trial, holding that such testimony is admissible and that, as a matter of law, it could not be said that Defendants' decisions in this case violated the standard of care. View "Murray v. UNMC Physicians" on Justia Law

Thirteen-year-old Efrain Ramos-Domingo was killed by a Union Pacific Railroad Company train. Two days later, Efrain's mother, Manuela Gonzalez signed a document releasing Union Pacific from liability for Efrain's death in exchange for $15,000. Manuela later filed a complaint in district court for wrongful death and breach of fiduciary duty. Union Pacific filed a motion to dismiss Manuela's complaint, arguing that the release barred Manuela's claims. The district court sustained the motion to dismiss with respect to the wrongful death claim but overruled the motion with respect to the fiduciary duty claim. The district court then granted Union Pacific's motion for summary judgment on the remaining claim, finding that there was no fiduciary duty owed by Union Pacific to Manuela. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) the district court erred in dismissing Manuela's wrongful death claim because Manuela alleged facts that, if proved, could demonstrate that the release was void on the basis of its failure to represent a binding mutual understanding of the parties or was voidable as the product of fraud, overreaching or duress; and (2) the district court correctly concluded that Union Pacific owed no fiduciary duty to Manuela. Remanded. View "Gonzalez v. Union Pacific RR. Co." on Justia Law

Joni Mueller, an employee of the Lincoln Public Schools (LPS), sought workers' compensation benefits after she suffered a whole body injury arising out of and in the course of her employment. At issue was how to calculate Mueller's average weekly wage for workers' compensation purposes. As a school employee, Mueller worked only during the school year and did not work during summer vacation, but her salary was spread out so that she was paid every month of the year, including the summer months. The trial court determined the the basis of calculation should be what Mueller earned during the six months before her injury, not necessarily what she was paid, and awarded Mueller temporary and permanent disability benefits based upon its determinations. The review panel of the Workers' Compensation Court affirmed the award. On appeal, the reversed, holding that the trial court erred in not calculating Mueller's average weekly wage based upon her actual weekly income. Remanded. View "Mueller v. Lincoln Public Schools" on Justia Law

Plaintiff Kimberly Cotton was severely injured in an accident that occurred when a pickup crossed the centerline and struck her vehicle. The pickup had been struck by a Ford Mustang driven by a man who was seeking to evade a state trooper. Cotton sued the state of Nebraska under the State Tort Claims Act, which makes the state liable for injuries to innocent third parties proximately caused by vehicular pursuit by a state-employed law enforcement officer. The district court entered judgment in favor of the state, concluding that (1) there was no vehicular pursuit under the statute, (2) Anson's actions were the sole proximate cause of the injuries to Cotton, and (3) Cotton failed to prove that the state trooper's actions were a proximate cause of the accident. Cotton appealed. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err when it determined that Anson's actions were the sole proximate cause of Cotton's injuries and that the state was not liable under the State Tort Claims Act. View "Cotton v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant April Palmer, a member of Lakeside Wellness Center, was injured at Lakeside when she approached a treadmill and, unaware that the treadmill belt was running, stepped onto the treadmill and was thrown off the belt and into an elliptical training machine behind her. Palmer sued Lakeside and Precor, Inc., the manufacturer of the treadmill, for her injuries. Lakeside and Precor filed motions for summary judgment, which were granted. Palmer appealed, arguing, inter alia, that while Lakeside was not liable to Palmer for damages caused to by ordinary negligence by virtue of the waivers signed by Palmer upon joining Lakeside, Lakeside was nevertheless liable because its actions were grossly negligent or willful and wanton. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Precor was not shielded from liability as a result of the waivers; (2) as a matter of law, any negligence by Lakeside was not gross negligence or willful or wanton conduct; and (3) the record affirmatively showed that Precor did not breach any duty it owed to Palmer. View "Palmer v. Lakeside Wellness Ctr." on Justia Law

Appellant David Maycock, in his capacity as special administrator of the estate of Marty Maycock, filed a complaint alleging medical malpractice and wrongful death against various doctors and Alegent Health based on their treatment of Marty prior to and until his death. The district court dismissed the case against certain doctors and Alegent Health. The court of appeals affirmed these rulings. Meanwhile, at the district court, the remaining doctors moved for summary judgment on the sole basis that the claims against them were barred by the two-year statute of limitations. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the doctors. The court of appeals reversed and remanded, determining that there were genuine issues of material fact whether Marty was under a mental disorder at the time he was treated by the doctors and that therefore, pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-213, the statute of limitations was tolled until the removal of his mental disorder. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the court of appeals, holding that the court of appeals correctly concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding whether and on what dates the action was tolled. View "Maycock v. Hoody" on Justia Law

In 2009, a semi-trailer truck owned by McLaughlin Freight Lines collided with cattle owned by Marvin Gentrup that had escaped from their holding pen. McLaughlin filed suit, seeking recovery for damages to its truck. McLaughlin premised its argument for recovery solely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. The district court sustained Gentrup's motion for summary judgment. At issue on appeal was (1) whether the district court correctly applied the common-law principles of res ipsa loquitur, and (2) whether Neb. Rev. Stat. 25-21,274, which provides that the fact of escaped livestock, standing alone, is insufficient to raise an inference of negligence, supplants those principles. The Supreme Court held that (1) because there were genuine issues of material fact with regard to one or more elements of res ipsa loquitur, the trial court's order granting summary judgment was improper, and (2) because McLaughlin presented evidence in conjunction with the fact of escaped livestock, the statute does not bar McLaughlin's claim. View "McLaughlin Freight Lines v. Gentrup" on Justia Law

Nebraska law provides that a court may order any non-exempt property of a judgment debtor to be applied toward the satisfaction of the judgment, but the Nebraska State Patrol Retirement Act (the Act) provides that annuities or benefits âwhich any person shall be entitled to receive underâ the Act are not subject to garnishment, attachment, levy or any other process of law. The issue presented for the Supreme Courtâs review was whether a plaintiff, who won a civil judgment against a former state trooper, could essentially garnish the former trooperâs retirement benefits for satisfaction. Defendant and former trooper Billy Hobbs sexually assaulted the minor child of J.M. He was sentenced to 25-30 yearsâ imprisonment. J.M. sued Mr. Hobbs and received a $325,000 judgment against him. Though incarcerated, Mr. Hobbs still received his trooper retirement pension. J.M. filed a motion for an âorder in aid of execution,â alleging that Hobbs was a judgment debtor, and he should be asked to pay the judgment against him from the money he received from his state trooper pension. Hobbs said his money was exempt, and the district court agreed, and denied J.M.âs motion. The Supreme Court affirmed the district courtâs dismissal of J.M.âs motion.

Joseph (Joe) Mandolfo sued his brother Mario and American National Bank (ANB). At one time, Joe owned several businesses, some of which had accounts with ANB. After his brother Mario lost his job as a teacher, Joe hired Mario to work for him. Joe alleged that Mario had, with the help of ANB, wrongfully deposited checks intended for Joeâs business, into his own account. From 1995 until 2000, Joe contended that Mario embezzled about $1.2 million. The district court granted summary judgment to Joe against Mario. The court however, also granted summary judgment to ANB, concluding that a statute of limitations barred Joeâs claims against the bank. Joe appealed the grant of summary judgment to the bank. The Supreme Court concluded that Joeâs claims were governed by the Uniform Commercial Code, and as a result, were subject to a three-year statute of limitations. Joe did not discover Marioâs misappropriations until 2003. Accordingly, the Court affirmed the lower courtâs decision to dismiss Joeâs claims against the bank as untimely.