Bogue v. Gillis, 973 N.W.2d 338

In January 2017, Dr. Christopher Gillis performed a lumbar fusion on Lori Bogue; the Bogues allege Gillis negligently injured Lori’s ureter during surgery, ultimately requiring removal of her left kidney in March 2018.
Lori had follow-up visits with Gillis through at least January 19, 2018, addressing a fluid collection and psoas abscess related to the surgery; the Bogues’ expert said post‑operative treatment was related to the alleged surgical negligence.
The Bogues filed suit on January 3, 2020, alleging medical malpractice and loss of consortium; Gillis moved for summary judgment, asserting the claim was time‑barred under the applicable 2‑year statute of limitations (§ 44‑2828 / § 25‑222).
The parties agreed the discovery exception did not apply; the core dispute was whether the 2‑year limitations period began at the January 2017 surgery or at the end of related treatment in January 2018 under the continuous treatment doctrine.
The district court granted summary judgment for Gillis, finding no evidence of negligent treatment after the surgery and that the limitations period began at the time of the alleged negligent act (the surgery).
The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed, rejecting the broader version of the continuous treatment doctrine (which tolled limitations until the end of any related treatment) and reaffirming that tolling applies only where there is a misdiagnosis with subsequent incorrect treatment or a continuing course of negligent treatment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the 2‑year malpractice statute of limitations begin to run?	The limitations period was tolled under the continuous treatment doctrine until Gillis’s related post‑operative treatment ended (Jan. 2018), so the Jan. 2020 suit is timely.	The continuous treatment doctrine applies only if subsequent treatment was negligent or based on a misdiagnosis; here the alleged negligent act occurred in Jan. 2017, so limitations began then and the suit is untimely.	Court held limitations began at the Jan. 2017 surgery; disapproved the broad rule that any related post‑treatment delays the start of the limitations period absent a continuing negligent course or misdiagnosis.

Williams v. Elias, 140 Neb. 656, 1 N.W.2d 121 (Neb. 1941) (origin of continuous‑treatment reasoning: misdiagnosis leading to continued improper treatment tolls limitations until treatment ends)
Tiwald v. Dewey, 221 Neb. 547, 378 N.W.2d 671 (Neb. 1985) (continuous‑treatment tolling requires a continuing course of negligent treatment, not isolated acts)
Frezell v. Iwersen, 231 Neb. 365, 436 N.W.2d 194 (Neb. 1989) (continuous‑treatment doctrine applies only when subsequent treatment is negligent or based on misdiagnosis)
Healy v. Langdon, 245 Neb. 1, 511 N.W.2d 498 (Neb. 1994) (adopted a broader rule tolling limitations until conclusion of any related treatment; disapproved by this opinion)
Joyner v. Forney, 78 F.3d 1339 (8th Cir. 1996) (noted and declined to follow Nebraska cases applying the broader continuous‑treatment rule; recognized the conflict in Nebraska precedent)