Churchill v. Columbus Comm. Hosp.
285 Neb. 759
| Neb. | 2013Background
- Churchill sued Columbus Community Hospital and Premier Physical Therapy for injuries from a 2007 aquatic therapy session; action filed 2011 in Platte County District Court.
- District court granted summary judgment, holding a two-year statute for professional negligence (Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-222) applied to Churchill’s claim.
- Court held physical therapists are professionals and their services trigger §25-222; action accrues when the professional act occurs (injury at pool exit).
- Defendants argued premises liability and longer four-year limitations; court rejected and applied §25-222 as to professional negligence.
- Court affirmed summary judgment; Churchill’s remaining theories were time-barred; physical therapy relations constituted a professional relationship for statute purposes.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are physical therapists professionals under §25-222? | Churchill contends therapists are not “professionals.” | Defendants rely on Swassing framework and Tylle to limit professional scope. | Yes, therapists are professionals under §25-222. |
| Was exiting the pool part of the professional services? | Leaving pool not an essential part of therapy. | Leaving pool was essential to therapy; part of services. | Leaving pool was part of professional services; accrual under §25-222. |
| Is Churchill’s claim timely under §25-222? | Premises-liability theory should apply; longer limitations. | §25-222 governs professional negligence claims; two-year limit. | Time-barred under §25-222. |
| Did the district court abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend? | Amendment should be allowed. | No genuine issues; amendment unnecessary. | District court did not err in denying leave to amend. |
Key Cases Cited
- Swassing v. Baum, 195 Neb. 651 (Neb. 1976) (professional service defined; essential to medical treatment)
- Olsen v. Richards, 232 Neb. 298 (Neb. 1989) (examination/treatment injury within professional duty)
- Tylle v. Zoucha, 226 Neb. 476 (Neb. 1987) (best definition of profession; long preparation and licensing indicate profession)
- Jorgensen v. State Nat. Bank & Trust, 255 Neb. 241 (Neb. 1998) (licensing and training indicate profession; not solely mental labor)
- Murphy v. Spelts-Schultz Lumber Co., 240 Neb. 275 (Neb. 1992) (accrual of professional-negligence claim at act or omission)