Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868

December 2008 car collision; Putnam sued the Scherbrings in April 2012 for negligence and claimed past medical expenses among damages.
Parties stipulated to a progression/scheduling order; Putnam missed initial expert-designation deadlines and the court granted multiple continuances (trial ultimately continued three times).
Putnam sought to disclose new expert opinions and a supplemental report (dated March 30, 2015) asserting a traumatic brain injury and that various treating physicians’ bills were fair, reasonable, and necessary; disclosure occurred 22 days before trial and long after discovery closed.
The Scherbrings moved in limine to exclude late-disclosed expert opinions and undisclosed medical bills; the district court sustained the motion in part, allowing limited testimony only about the expert’s own bills but excluding the remainder for lack of foundation.
At trial most medical bills were excluded for lack of an expert foundation; the jury returned a verdict for the Scherbrings. The Court of Appeals reversed, applying Norquay discovery‑sanction factors; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review.

Issue	Putnam's Argument	Scherbrings' Argument	Held
Whether Norquay discovery‑sanction factors governed exclusion of late expert opinions/evidence	Norquay factors should apply and the district court abused discretion by not balancing those factors	District court enforced its progression order via inherent authority, so Norquay §6‑337 sanctions framework was inapplicable	Norquay did not apply; court properly relied on inherent authority to enforce progression order
Whether excluding untimely expert opinion and related medical bills was an abuse of discretion	Exclusion was an abuse given counsel illness/injury and limited prejudice	Exclusion was a reasonable enforcement of scheduling and case‑progression rules to avoid surprise/delay	No abuse of discretion; exclusion upheld
Admissibility of medical bills absent foundation	Bills were admissible and could be supported by lay testimony or late expert	Medical bills required expert foundation as to fairness/reasonableness; without timely expert, bills lacked foundation	Medical bills excluded because admissibility depended on excluded expert opinion

Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad, 225 Neb. 527, 407 N.W.2d 146 (Neb. 1987) (factors for imposing discovery sanctions under court rules)
State v. Chauncey, 295 Neb. 453, 890 N.W.2d 453 (Neb. 2017) (abuse‑of‑discretion standard explained)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148, 871 N.W.2d 776 (Neb. 2015) (discovery control is trial court discretion)
Tyler v. Heywood, 258 Neb. 901, 607 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 2000) (appellate review of inherent‑power use is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013) (trial court broad discretion on discovery/evidentiary rulings)
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131, 816 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2012) (medical expenses recoverable if reasonable and necessary)
Steinauer v. Sarpy County, 217 Neb. 830, 353 N.W.2d 715 (Neb. 1984) (medical and hospital expense recovery requires proof of reasonable value)