Doe v. Zedek

255 Neb. 963 (1999) · Supreme Court of Nebraska · January 15, 1999 · No. S-97-1200

Summary

This Nebraska Supreme Court opinion addresses a medical malpractice claim where a psychiatric patient alleged that her physician failed to properly evaluate and treat her after she reported a sexual assault by a hospital employee. The court reversed the trial court's denial of the physician's motion for a directed verdict, holding that the plaintiff failed to present competent expert testimony establishing that the physician's alleged negligence was a proximate cause of her subjective injuries. The decision emphasizes that subjective psychological damages require expert medical testimony to prove causation beyond mere possibility or speculation.

Court
Supreme Court of Nebraska
Writing for the Court
HENDRY, C.J.; WRIGHT, J.; CONNOLLY, J.; GERRARD, J.; STEPHAN, J.; McCORMACK, J.; MILLER-LERMAN, J.
Jurisdiction
Nebraska
Decision date
January 15, 1999
Docket number
S-97-1200
Procedural posture
Appeal from the Lincoln County District Court's denial of a directed verdict and other post‑trial motions.
Standard of review
De novo review of the directed‑verdict denial; denial of summary‑judgment is an interlocutory order and not appealable.
Precedential value
published
Parties
Yaron Zedek, M.D. v. Jane Doe Two
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded

Topics

professional negligencemedical malpracticeproximate causeappellate procedurestandard of review

Practice areas

tortsappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court erred in denying Zedek's motion for summary judgment.
  2. Whether the district court erred in denying Zedek's motion for a directed verdict on the issue of proximate cause.

Holdings

  1. The denial of a motion for summary judgment is an interlocutory order and is not appealable; therefore the court will not consider the issue.
  2. The directed verdict was proper because Doe failed to prove, by competent expert testimony, that Zedek's negligence was a proximate cause of her mental suffering; the judgment of the district court is reversed and the case remanded with directions to dismiss.

Key quotations

The law is clear. We need not consider the trial court's denial of appellant's motion for summary judgment. (891)
We find the record void of any expert testimony indicating that Zedek's negligence was a proximate cause of Doe's injuries or a proximately contributing cause. (894)

Factual background

Doe, a mildly retarded 52‑year‑old woman, was sexually assaulted while a patient at Great Plains Regional Medical Center. She informed Dr. Zedek of the assault; Zedek did not believe her and provided no psychiatric treatment. Doe later sued Zedek for professional negligence, alleging mental suffering caused by Zedek's failure to evaluate and treat her after the assault.

Procedural history

The district court denied Zedek's motions for summary judgment, directed verdict, judgment notwithstanding the verdict, and new trial. A jury returned a $100,000 verdict for Doe. Zedek appealed.

Remand instructions

Dismiss the case.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…