Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868

In April 2012 Putnam sued the Scherbrings for injuries and medical expenses from a December 2008 car collision; the Scherbrings admitted negligence but disputed injury and damages.
The district court entered and later amended a progression/scheduling order setting expert disclosure and discovery deadlines; trial was continued multiple times at Putnam’s request and with court accommodations.
Putnam missed initial expert disclosure deadlines, sought further discovery and added experts roughly three years after filing and long after discovery closed; the court denied motions to reopen discovery.
Shortly before the June 2015 trial, Putnam disclosed a supplemental expert report (dated March 30, 2015) opining on traumatic brain injury and that many treating medical bills were fair, reasonable, and necessary; disclosure occurred 22 days before trial.
The district court (exercising its inherent authority to enforce progression orders) excluded the untimely expert opinion and, for lack of foundation, most medical bills; the jury then returned a verdict for the Scherbrings.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, applying this Court’s Norquay discovery‑sanction factors; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reversed the Court of Appeals, upholding the exclusion.

Issue	Putnam's Argument	Scherbrings' Argument	Held
Whether Norquay factors govern exclusion of untimely expert evidence disclosed shortly before trial	Norquay sanction framework should apply and exclusion was an abuse of discretion	District court enforced progression order via inherent authority; Norquay not controlling	Norquay inapplicable; court properly relied on inherent power to enforce progression orders
Whether exclusion of untimely expert opinion was an abuse of discretion	Exclusion prejudiced Putnam and warranted reversal	Exclusion was reasonable after repeated continuances and late disclosure that would further delay trial	No abuse of discretion; exclusion upheld
Whether medical bills lacking expert foundation were admissible	Medical providers and Putnam’s testimony suffice to admit bills	Foundation required: expert opinion on fairness/reasonableness was necessary and excluded	Exclusion of most medical bills proper because foundational expert opinion was excluded
Whether repeated continuances required different relief (reopen discovery or new trial)	Court should have allowed limited discovery or continuance to avoid surprise	Court fairly balanced progression standards and prior accommodations; further delay improper	Court acted within discretion; enforcement of scheduling order appropriate

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) (definition of abuse of discretion standard)
Roskop Dairy v. GEA Farm Tech., 292 Neb. 148, 871 N.W.2d 776 (Neb. 2015) (discretionary control of discovery)
Tyler v. Heywood, 258 Neb. 901, 607 N.W.2d 186 (Neb. 2000) (appellate review of exercise of inherent power is for abuse of discretion)
State v. Pangborn, 286 Neb. 363, 836 N.W.2d 790 (Neb. 2013) (trial court broad discretion over evidentiary rulings)
Connelly v. City of Omaha, 284 Neb. 131, 816 N.W.2d 742 (Neb. 2012) (medical expenses recoverable only with evidence of reasonable value)