Eddy v. Builders Supply Co., 937 N.W.2d 198

Background

On Sept. 24, 2015, a 3/4-inch nail became embedded in Wanda Eddy’s right temple at work; no eyewitnesses described how the injury occurred.
Builders Supply denied Eddy’s workers’ compensation claim, alleging she deliberately shot herself; Eddy sued claiming an accidental misfire from a Paslode T250-F16 nail gun causing severe brain injury.
Eddy retained mechanical engineer Ralph Barnett as a consulting expert in summer 2017 but did not disclose his opinions (or that he would testify live) until shortly before the April 2018 trial; supplemental discovery in April gave topics but not the substance or bases for his opinions.
At trial the court excluded Barnett as a sanction for discovery noncompliance, denied Eddy’s motion for a continuance to allow defendant to depose him, and proceeded on liability; both parties presented lay testimony about nail-gun function and circumstances around the injury.
The Workers’ Compensation Court found Eddy intentionally shot herself (willful negligence/suicide), concluding the nail’s trajectory and other circumstantial evidence contradicted her accident account; it dismissed her petition. Eddy appealed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of expert testimony (discovery sanction)	Eddy: Barnett’s opinions were disclosed as soon as available; exclusion was disproportionate because his testimony was critical.	Builders Supply: Barnett was designated too late and his opinions and bases were never disclosed, unfairly prejudicing preparation.	Court upheld exclusion as proper §6-337 sanction because Eddy failed to disclose expert opinions and bases in time.
Denial of continuance to allow deposition of expert	Eddy: Continuance warranted given importance of Barnett’s testimony; offered to pay deposition costs.	Builders Supply: Delay was Eddy’s fault; prior continuances already granted; further delay prejudicial.	Court affirmed denial—no good cause shown given long notice of defense theory and history of delays.
Sufficiency of evidence re: mechanical function of nail gun (need for expert)	Eddy: Excluding Barnett prevented proof that gun misfired; court lacked necessary mechanical evidence.	Builders Supply: Lay testimony, physical evidence, and demonstrations sufficed; Barnett’s late disclosure precluded reliance.	Court held there was sufficient admissible evidence (lay testimony, physical evidence, court’s own handling/tests) to resolve mechanical dispute.
Finding of willful negligence / intentional self-injury vs. medical/psych records	Eddy: Post‑injury medical records show low suicide risk; court ignored psychological evidence and presumption against suicide.	Builders Supply: Circumstantial evidence (trajectory, note, behavior, inconsistencies) rebuts any presumption; post‑injury records reflect effects of brain injury, not pre‑incident state.	Court affirmed willful negligence finding—evidence supported intentional act; presumption against suicide not controlling, and post‑injury evaluations were not dispositive of state of mind at time of injury.

Key Cases Cited

Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad, 225 Neb. 527, 407 N.W.2d 146 (Neb. 1987) (factors trial court should weigh before excluding expert testimony for discovery noncompliance)
Paulk v. Central Lab. Assocs., 262 Neb. 838, 636 N.W.2d 170 (Neb. 2001) (discovery’s purpose and trial preparation; duty to supplement interrogatory answers)
Uresil Corp. v. Cook Group, Inc., 135 F.R.D. 168 (N.D. Ill. 1991) (Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 expert disclosure requires stating subject matter and bases of expert opinions)
Williams v. McNamara, 118 F.R.D. 294 (D. Mass. 1988) (expert interrogatory answers inadequate where they fail to state substance and reasons for opinions)
Breckenridge v. Midlands Roofing Co., 222 Neb. 452, 384 N.W.2d 298 (Neb. 1986) (suicide as willful negligence under workers’ compensation law)
Grady v. Visiting Nurse Assn., 246 Neb. 1013, 524 N.W.2d 559 (Neb. 1994) (continuance standards; good cause required)