Brothers v. Kimball Cty. Hosp.
289 Neb. 879
| Neb. | 2015Background
- Bradly Brothers was treated at Kimball County Hospital after a 2010 accident and later discovered missed fractures; he filed a tort claim under the Political Subdivisions Tort Claims Act (the Act).
- Brothers submitted an initial written claim to the Kimball County clerk, the hospital CEO, and the board chair; he later attempted to amend and file the claim with the hospital board secretary after suit was filed.
- Brothers sued Kimball County, Kimball County Hospital (d/b/a Kimball Health Services), the hospital board, and a physician for medical malpractice and related claims.
- The district court dismissed Kimball County (treating a motion to dismiss as, or converting it to, summary judgment) and later granted summary judgment to Kimball County Hospital and the physician for failure to file the statutory claim with the designated official.
- The Nebraska Court of Appeals affirmed; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted review and affirmed, holding (1) a county hospital is a separate political subdivision from the county for counties under 200,000 population, and (2) Brothers failed to satisfy the Act’s filing/notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a county hospital is a separate legal/political subdivision | Brothers argued the hospital is not separate from the county, so the county may be liable | County, hospital, and physician argued the county hospital is an independent political subdivision distinct from the county | Held: A county hospital (for counties <200,000 pop.) is a separate political subdivision; county not liable for hospital employees’ acts |
| Whether the district court’s receipt of evidence converted the county's motion to summary judgment and prejudiced Brothers | Brothers argued he was denied reasonable notice and opportunity to present opposing evidence after the motion was treated as summary judgment | County argued conversion did not prejudice Brothers because the county had no liability as a matter of law | Held: Procedure was imperfect but any error was harmless because county could have no liability as a matter of law |
| Whether Brothers’ initial filing (with county clerk and CEO) satisfied the Act’s requirement to file with the official who maintains records | Brothers claimed filing with the county clerk and CEO (who actually maintained records) substantially complied | Defendants argued statute requires filing with the official whose duty it is to maintain official records (e.g., board secretary) and unauthorized recipients do not suffice | Held: Filing with an official who does not have the statutory duty to maintain records (even if that person actually kept records) does not satisfy §13‑905; Brothers failed to timely file with the designated official |
| Whether §13‑919(3) extended time to cure filing defects after initial denial or determination | Brothers argued §13‑919(3) allowed refiling or extension where service/filing problems were identified | Defendants argued §13‑919(3) does not extend the time to file an Act claim against a different political subdivision after denial | Held: §13‑919(3) does not extend time to file an Act claim against a different/additional political subdivision; Brothers’ amended claim was time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Conroy v. Keith Cty. Bd. of Equal., 288 Neb. 196, 846 N.W.2d 634 (2014) (discussed appellate review principles)
- Jessen v. Malhotra, 266 Neb. 393, 665 N.W.2d 586 (2003) (recognition of county-owned hospital as political subdivision in prior contexts)
- Estate of McElwee v. Omaha Transit Auth., 266 Neb. 317, 664 N.W.2d 461 (2003) (holding filing with an official who lacked the statutory duty to receive claims did not satisfy §13‑905)
- Corona de Camargo v. Schon, 278 Neb. 1045, 776 N.W.2d 1 (2009) (noting harmlessness where parties had notice of the legal issue despite procedural irregularity)