Fidler v. Life Care Centers of America
301 Neb. 724
Neb.2018Background
- Virginia and Keith Fidler sued Life Care Centers for alleged medical negligence after Virginia developed a blood clot and suffered complications following a short nursing-facility stay; suit filed September 8, 2015.
- The district court issued a notice under its local Rule 4-10 requiring a Proposed Scheduling Order (PSO); no PSO was timely filed and the case was administratively dismissed March 6, 2017, for lack of prosecution.
- The Fidlers moved to set aside the dismissal and reinstate the case, submitting counsel’s affidavit explaining case activity and a calendaring error that missed the 30-day deadline; an evidentiary hearing was held.
- The district court granted reinstatement on November 16, 2017, finding good cause, concluding dismissal would be an extreme remedy and not prejudicial to Life Care Centers, and entered a scheduling order.
- Life Care Centers appealed the reinstatement order, arguing the court applied the local rule instead of Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-201.01 and that the Fidlers lacked good cause for reinstatement.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court questioned appellate jurisdiction: whether the reinstatement order was a final, appealable order under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 25-1902.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Fidlers) | Defendant's Argument (Life Care Centers) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the order reinstating the case is a final, appealable order under § 25-1902 | Reinstatement returns case to active docket; appellate review not appropriate now | Reinstatement after dismissal that occurred post–statute of limitations and after plaintiffs retained expert affects substantial rights and is immediately appealable | Not final or appealable; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether reinstatement affected a substantial right by eliminating a statute-of-limitations defense in a hypothetical new action | N/A (plaintiffs contend case should proceed) | Jarrett precedent: reinstatement destroys SOL defense in a future suit, so substantial right was affected | Jarrett’s reasoning disapproved; cannot base finality on loss of defenses in hypothetical future action |
| Whether retention of an expert between dismissal and reinstatement affects a substantial right | Reinstatement simply restores pre-dismissal posture | Hiring an expert during the dismissal period created prejudice and affected defendant’s right | Court held expert retention did not affect a substantial right; ordinary trial burdens do not suffice |
| Proper standard for determining finality of reinstatement orders | Local rules and circumstances govern reinstatement; interlocutory review unnecessary | Apply § 25-1902’s criteria to decide finality; interlocutory appeal warranted if substantial right affected | § 25-1902 controls; court must ask whether order affects substantial right in the current case — here it did not |
Key Cases Cited
- Deines v. Essex Corp., 293 Neb. 577, 879 N.W.2d 30 (Neb. 2016) (clarifies no blanket rule that reinstatement orders are final; apply § 25-1902)
- Jarrett v. Eichler, 244 Neb. 310, 506 N.W.2d 682 (Neb. 1993) (held reinstatement destroyed statute-of-limitations defense; court here disapproves that reasoning)
- Gutchewsky v. Ready Mixed Concrete Co., 219 Neb. 803, 366 N.W.2d 751 (Neb. 1985) (earlier case relied on in Jarrett; disapproved to extent it follows Jarrett’s future-action reasoning)
- A. Hirsh, Inc. v. National Hair Co., 210 Neb. 397, 315 N.W.2d 236 (Neb. 1982) (earlier reinstatement-related decision; disapproved to extent relying on Jarrett logic)
- Fanning v. Richards, 193 Neb. 431, 227 N.W.2d 595 (Neb. 1975) (reinstatement decision that did not address jurisdiction; disapproved to the extent it implicitly adopts Jarrett reasoning)
- Vacca v. DeJardine, 213 Neb. 736, 331 N.W.2d 516 (Neb. 1983) (involved vacation of default judgment where finality was tied to deprivation of an existing judgment)
- Jones v. Nebraska Blue Cross Hospital Service Assn., 175 Neb. 101, 120 N.W.2d 557 (Neb. 1963) (similar to Vacca: appeal concerned loss of an existing judgment)
- Cullinane v. Beverly Enters. - Neb., 300 Neb. 210, 912 N.W.2d 774 (Neb. 2018) (cited for final-order principles and § 25-1902 analysis)
Disposition: Appeal dismissed for lack of appellate jurisdiction; court limits final-order doctrine to substantial rights affected in the current case and disapproves precedent that relied on loss of defenses in hypothetical future suits.