Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868

In April 2012 Putnam sued the Scherbrings for damages from a December 2008 auto collision; defendants admitted negligence but disputed injury and damages.
The district court entered progression orders setting expert disclosure and discovery deadlines and scheduled trial; the court granted multiple continuances at Putnam’s request after missed deadlines and counsel health issues.
Putnam missed expert-disclosure deadlines, later sought to reopen discovery and add experts roughly a year after the court’s expert deadline; those motions were denied.
Shortly before the June 2015 trial Putnam produced a supplemental expert report (dated March 30, 2015) disclosing new opinions about traumatic brain injury and that numerous medical bills were fair, reasonable, and necessary; disclosure occurred after discovery closed and only 22 days before trial.
The district court, exercising its inherent authority to enforce its progression order, excluded the untimely expert opinion as to most medical bills (and consequently excluded most medical-bill evidence); trial proceeded and jury verdict favored defendants.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed (applying Norquay discovery-sanction factors); the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the exclusion as a proper exercise of inherent power and not an abuse of discretion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Norquay discovery‑sanction factors were required before excluding untimely expert opinion and related medical bills	Putnam: exclusion was a discovery sanction and Norquay factors should govern; exclusion was an abuse of discretion	Scherbring: court enforced progression order under inherent authority; Norquay inapplicable	Norquay factors not required; exclusion upheld
Whether exclusion of expert opinion and most medical bills was an abuse of discretion	Putnam: exclusion was unreasonable given counsel illness and prior accommodations	Scherbring: repeated continuances had been granted; further delay would undermine case progression	No abuse of discretion—district court acted reasonably to enforce scheduling and ensure fair, orderly trial
Whether medical bills required expert foundation and thus were properly excluded after expert exclusion	Putnam: bills could be admitted through other evidence	Scherbring: bills lacked foundation without expert testimony that they were reasonable/necessary	Bills properly excluded for lack of foundational expert opinion
Proper remedy for exclusion error claimed by Putnam	Putnam: new trial required	Scherbring: exclusion lawful; judgment should stand	Judgment affirmed; Court of Appeals reversed and remanded with directions to affirm district court judgment

Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad, 225 Neb. 527 (setting factors for exclusion as a sanction under discovery rules)
State v. Chauncey, 295 Neb. 453 (defining abuse of discretion standard)
Tyler v. Heywood, 258 Neb. 901 (appellate review of a court’s inherent‑power exercise is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363 (discussing trial court discretion on discovery and evidentiary rulings)
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131 (medical expenses recoverable only if reasonable and necessary)