Komar v. State, 908 N.W.2d 610

On Jan 15, 2013 Komar learned a state employee accessed her medical records without permission; that is the accrual date of her tort claim.
Komar presented a written tort claim to the State Risk Manager on June 27, 2014 (≈17 months after accrual), as required by the State Tort Claims Act (STCA).
The claim remained pending before the State Claims Board; statutory rules prevented withdrawal for a 6‑month repose period after filing.
Komar withdrew her claim on July 14, 2015, and filed suit the next day in district court (July 15, 2015).
The State moved to dismiss under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81‑8,227(1) as time barred; district court and Court of Appeals dismissed and affirmed. The Supreme Court granted further review.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Komar’s suit was timely under the STCA’s 2‑year limit plus § 81‑8,227(1) 6‑month extension	Komar: the 6‑month extension runs from the date she actually withdrew the claim, so filing the day after withdrawal was timely	State: the 6‑month extension runs from the first date the claimant could have withdrawn the claim (the earliest permissible withdrawal date)	Held: The extension runs from the first date the claim could have been withdrawn; Komar’s suit was filed after the applicable period and is time barred

Coleman v. Chadron State College, 237 Neb. 491 (1991) (held claimants who file with the board in the last 6 months of the 2‑year period get 6 months from the first date they could withdraw to file suit)
Hullinger v. Board of Regents, 249 Neb. 868 (1996) (applied Coleman and rejected claimants’ request to run 6‑month extension from actual withdrawal when the period already expired)
Sharkey v. Board of Regents, 260 Neb. 166 (2000) (explained Coleman is an extension, not a separate limitation; suits filed within 2 years remain timely)
Collins v. State, 264 Neb. 267 (2002) (clarified that when the board issues a final disposition, the 6‑month filing period runs from mailing of written notice of denial)