Ricker v. Nebraska Methodist Health Sys., 319 Neb. 628

Kimberly Ricker filed a wrongful death and medical malpractice action against Nebraska Methodist Health System and Dr. Orton, alleging that her husband died due to their negligence after an emergency room visit.
The district court entered progression orders requiring designation of expert witnesses by set deadlines; Ricker failed to designate a medical expert by the deadlines.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Ricker could not prove her case without medical expert testimony; Ricker attempted to disclose a new expert a week before the hearing, well after the deadline.
The trial court excluded Ricker’s late-disclosed expert both as a discovery sanction and under its inherent power to enforce progression orders, leading to summary judgment for the defendants.
The Nebraska Court of Appeals reversed, finding exclusion of the expert was an abuse of discretion; the Nebraska Supreme Court granted further review and reinstated the trial court’s decision.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Exclusion of late medical expert (sanction and progression order)	Exclusion was an abuse of discretion given circumstances, including attorney’s death	Exclusion appropriate under court’s inherent authority and as a sanction; deadline was missed by years	Exclusion of the expert was proper under the court’s inherent authority
Admissibility of defendant physician’s affidavit	Should be excluded as untimely designated expert	Defendant-party need not designate self as expert for summary judgment	Affidavit admitted; self-supporting affidavit by defendant-physician allowed
Grant of summary judgment	Should not be granted; expert evidence was excluded	Plaintiff cannot prove case without expert testimony	Summary judgment for defendants affirmed
Continuance of summary judgment hearing	Further continuance needed after new counsel retained	Already multiple continuances; no good cause shown	No abuse of discretion in denying further continuance

Norquay v. Union Pacific Railroad, 225 Neb. 527 (discusses discovery sanctions and factors for excluding expert testimony)
Carrizales v. Creighton St. Joseph, 312 Neb. 296 (holds a defendant-physician need not be designated as expert to support summary judgment)
Keys v. Guthmann, 267 Neb. 649 (establishes expert testimony is required to prove medical malpractice)
Putnam v. Scherbring, 297 Neb. 868 (clarifies that exclusion of late expert under inherent power is different from discovery sanctions and does not require Norquay analysis)
Lombardo v. Sedlacek, 299 Neb. 400 (self-supporting affidavit of physician suffices at summary judgment in malpractice cases)