Justia Nebraska Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals reversing and vacating an award of penalties and attorney fees, holding that, for reasoning different from the court of appeals, the court of appeals did not err when it reversed the award of penalties and attorney fees.Martin Boring filed a petition against Zoetis LLC in the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court (WCC) claiming a compensable injury arising from his employment with Zoetis. The WCC awarded Boring temporary and permanent benefits and ordered Zoetis to pay Boring penalties and attorney fees under Neb. Rev. Stat. 48-125. The court of appeals affirmed the benefits award but vacated the award of penalties and attorney fees. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the WCC erred when it found that there was no reasonable controversy based solely on its reliance on the judicial admission in Zoetis' answer. View "Boring v. Zoetis LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court excluding the expert opinion testimony of a licensed chiropractor in Nebraska that his patient sustained a traumatic brain injury in a motor vehicle collision, holding that the court did not err in excluding the testimony.Plaintiff sued Defendant, who struck Plaintiff's vehicle from behind with his vehicle, alleging that Defendant's negligence resulted in Plaintiff's sustaining serious injuries. The defense in limine moved to preclude Dr. John McClaren, a licensed chiropractor, from giving any opinion testimony regarding his diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury. The trial court sustained the motion in limine, concluding that McLaren was not qualified to testify about the diagnosis and treatment of traumatic brain injuries. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Plaintiff for $5,000. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that McClaren's testimony regarding the diagnosis of a traumatic brain injury was correctly excluded because it fell outside the scope of chiropractic practice in Nebraska. View "Yagodinski v. Sutton" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court in favor of the State in this negligence action for damages under Nebraska's State Tort Claims Act (STCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 81-8,209 et seq., holding that the State was immune from Plaintiff's claims under the discretionary function exception of the STCA.Plaintiff was an inmate at the Tecumseh State Correctional Institution during riots that occurred in 2015. In his complaint, Plaintiff, who was in protective custody at the time of the riots, alleged that, due to the Department of Correctional Services's negligence he was improperly commingled with general population inmates and placed at risk, causing the symptoms of his post-traumatic stress disorder to be exacerbated. The district court found in favor of the State. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court properly concluded that the discretionary function exception to the STCA shielded the State from liability on Plaintiff's claims. View "Wizinsky v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the district court granting summary judgment to Defendants in this wrongful death action, holding that the district court properly found that Defendants owed no legal duty under the circumstances.Mikael Loyd was a patient for six days at Lasting Hope Recovery Center, a mental health facility, where he was treated by a psychiatrist employed by the University of Nebraska Medical Center Physicians (UNMC Physicians). The day he was released Loyd killed his ex-girlfriend, Melissa Rodriguez. As special administrator's for Melissa's estate, her parents brought this action against Lasting Hope and UNMC Physicians for failing to warn and protect Melissa from Loyd. The district court granted summary judgment to Defendants, concluding that they owed no legal duty to Melissa. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Melissa's death was not legally attributable to the breach of duty by Defendants because Loyd never communicated to them that he intended to harm Melissa. View "Rodriguez v. Lasting Hope Recovery Center" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court finding that there was good cause to extend or continue a harassment protection order against Defendant, holding that Defendant's assignments of error were without merit.On February 3, 2020, Plaintiff sought a harassment protection order from the district court. After an ex parte order was issued a hearing was held on whether the ex parte order should be continued. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss and continued the harassment protection order until one year from the date of the original order. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not err in (1) finding sufficient support to order the ex parte harassment protection order; and (2) denying Defendant's request to stay the show cause hearing. View "Hawkins v. Delgado" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's order granting summary judgment in favor of Douglas County and dismissing Plaintiff's suit brought under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA), Neb. Rev. Stat. 13-901 to 13-928, holding that dismissal was proper on grounds of sovereign immunity.Plaintiff was held hostage and sexually assaulted by a former boyfriend. In her personal injury complaint, Plaintiff alleged that the County mishandled a series of 911 calls and, consequently, emergency personnel did not arrive in time to prevent or stop the sexual assault. The district court found that the County owed no legal duty to Plaintiff and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding that Plaintiff's negligence claim against the County fell within the exemption from the PSTCA "[a]ny claim arising out of assault." View "Edwards v. Douglas County" on Justia Law

In this case stemming from a fire that destroyed part of the Old Market area in Omaha the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court finding that the Metropolitan Utilities District (MUD) was not immune from suit and denying MUD's motion for summary judgment, holding that there was no merit to MUD's assignments of error.Multiple lawsuits were initiated as a result of the damage caused by the fire. After various settlements, MUD was the only remaining defendant involved in these consolidated appeals. Plaintiffs alleged that MUD failed properly to mark a gas line, failed to timely shut off the gas at the scene of the fire, and failed properly to abandon an old gas line. MUD filed a motion to dismiss in each case, arguing that it was immune from suit on the basis of the discretionary function exception to the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (PSTCA). The district court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that MUD was not immune from suit under the discretionary function exception to the PSTCA. View "Mercer v. North Central Service, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Nebraska Workers' Compensation Court on remand appointing an employee's "Form 50" physician and clarifying that it was not ordering a review of the employee's treatment regimen, holding that the order complied with this Court's mandate.Employee injured her back in the course and scope of her employment. As part of a settlement between Employee and her employer and its insurer (collectively, Employer), Employee completed a Form 50 anticipating that Employer would pay for treatment of Employee's injuries by her Form 50 physician. Employee chose a Nebraska doctor to serve as her Form 50 physician, but when she moved to Florida, she informed Employer that she had chosen a Florida doctor as her new Form 50 physician. Employer subsequently stopped paying for Employee's treatment. The compensation court ordered Employer to pay Employee's medical bills. The Supreme Court reversed, ruling that Employer was not required to pay for Employee's Florida medical treatment because Employee had not followed the statutory procedures to change her Form 50 physician. On remand, the compensation court appointed the Florida doctor as Employee's Form 50 physician. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the compensation court did not err in its order on remand. View "Rogers v. Jack's Supper Club" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the district court finding that E. Jane Egan lacked standing to challenge the Lancaster County Board of Commissioners' issuance of a special use permit allowing Randy Essink to construct and operate a poultry production facility on land within the county's agricultural zoning district and that the permit was appropriately issued, holding that the district court did not err.Egan and Janis Howlett challenged the Board's decision in the district court, asserting that the proposed poultry production facility would lead to adverse effects on the environment, properly values, public health, and local infrastructure. The district court affirmed the issuance of the special use permit, concluding that Egan did not have standing and that the permit was appropriately issued. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the district court did not err by failing to find that Egan had standing and finding that the special use permit was properly approved. View "Egan v. County of Lancaster" on Justia Law

In this workers' compensation case, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the compensation court granting Donna Parks compensation for chronic pain and aggravation of her mental health issues, both caused by a work-related low-back injury, holding that there was no merit to Hy-Vee Inc.'s arguments on appeal.Parks incurred a work-related injury in 2008 while employed by Hy-Vee and was granted compensation for her low-back injury. In 2017, the compensation court entered a further award granting Parks compensation for chronic pain and aggravation of her mental health issues caused by the low-back injury. Thereafter, the court modified the further award upon Parks' motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the compensation court's further award was not based on legal error; (2) the record supported the court's findings of fact, upon which the further award was based; and (3) the compensation court did not abuse its powers in modifying the further award. View "Parks v. Hy-Vee, Inc." on Justia Law