deviation standard in Nebraska

2018Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants, 297 Neb. 111 , 900 N.W.2d 732 (2017).

2018Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants, 297 Neb. 111 , 900 N.W.2d 732 (2017).

2004Neill v. Hemphill, 258 Neb. 949 , 607 N.W.2d 500 (2000).

2004Neill v. Hemphill, 258 Neb. 949 , 607 N.W.2d 500 (2000).

1979It’s the fact that in the last few days of the hospitalization the patient was still sick.” In reviewing this case, the applicable rule is: “A motion for a directed verdict or its equivalent must be treated as an admission of the truth of all material and relevant evidence submitted on behalf of the party against whom the motion is directed, and such party is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in his favor and to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence.” Kortus v. Jensen, 195 Neb. 261 , 237 N. W. 2d 845 (1976). *464 In a malpractice

1979It’s the fact that in the last few days of the hospitalization the patient was still sick.” In reviewing this case, the applicable rule is: “A motion for a directed verdict or its equivalent must be treated as an admission of the truth of all material and relevant evidence submitted on behalf of the party against whom the motion is directed, and such party is entitled to have every controverted fact resolved in his favor and to have the benefit of every inference which can reasonably be deduced from the evidence.” Kortus v. Jensen, 195 Neb. 261 , 237 N. W. 2d 845 (1976). *464 In a malpractice

2019Id. [11,12] In the medical malpractice context, the element of proximate causation requires proof that the physician’s deviation from the standard of care caused or contributed to the injury or damage to the plaintiff.

2018This case is similar to O’Brien v. Cessna Aircraft Co., 298 Neb. 109 , 903 N.W.2d 432 (2017).

2018In that case, the court could require the beneficiary to obtain insurance or post a bond to ensure that Gronin’s interests would be adequately protected in the event of unlikely circumstances. 32 See Adair Asset Mgmt. v. Terry’s Legacy, 293 Neb. 32 , 875 N.W.2d 421 (2016). 33 See Restatement (Second), supra note 21, § 340, comment h. - 41 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports IN RE TRUST OF SHIRE Cite as 299 Neb. 25 Common-Law Doctrine of Deviation Was Not Presented to County Court As the parties acknowledge, the court was not presented with the issue of whether the Tr

2018In that case, the court could require the beneficiary to obtain insurance or post a bond to ensure that Gronin’s interests would be adequately protected in the event of unlikely circumstances. 32 See Adair Asset Mgmt. v. Terry’s Legacy, 293 Neb. 32 , 875 N.W.2d 421 (2016). 33 See Restatement (Second), supra note 21, § 340, comment h. - 41 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports IN RE TRUST OF SHIRE Cite as 299 Neb. 25 Common-Law Doctrine of Deviation Was Not Presented to County Court As the parties acknowledge, the court was not presented with the issue of whether the Tr

2018In that case, the court could require the beneficiary to obtain insurance or post a bond to ensure that Gronin’s interests would be adequately protected in the event of unlikely circumstances. 32 See Adair Asset Mgmt. v. Terry’s Legacy, 293 Neb. 32 , 875 N.W.2d 421 (2016). 33 See Restatement (Second), supra note 21, § 340, comment h. - 41 - Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets 299 Nebraska R eports IN RE TRUST OF SHIRE Cite as 299 Neb. 25 Common-Law Doctrine of Deviation Was Not Presented to County Court As the parties acknowledge, the court was not presented with the issue of whether the Tr

2016Rankin v. Stetson, 275 Neb. 775 , 749 N.W.2d - 81 - Decisions of the Nebraska Court of A ppeals 24 Nebraska A ppellate R eports HILLYER v. MIDWEST GASTROINTESTINAL ASSOCS.

2008Karel v. Nebraska Health Sys., 274 Neb. 175 , 738 N.W.2d 831 (2007).

2008Karel v. Nebraska Health Sys., 274 Neb. 175 , 738 N.W.2d 831 (2007).

2004In Casey v. Levine, 261 Neb. 1 , 621 N.W.2d 482 (2001), we stated that in a malpractice action involving professional negligence, the burden is on the plaintiff to show: (1) the generally recognized medical standard of care, (2) a deviation from that standard by the defendant, and (3) that the deviation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

2004In Casey v. Levine, 261 Neb. 1 , 621 N.W.2d 482 (2001), we stated that in a malpractice action involving professional negligence, the burden is on the plaintiff to show: (1) the generally recognized medical standard of care, (2) a deviation from that standard by the defendant, and (3) that the deviation was the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s alleged injuries.

2003Relying in part on Sendak v. Trustees of Purdue Univ., 151 Ind. App. 372 , 279 N.E.2d 840 (1972), the Foundation argues that if cy pres does not apply, the doctrine of deviation should apply.

2003Relying in part on Sendak v. Trustees of Purdue Univ., 151 Ind. App. 372 , 279 N.E.2d 840 (1972), the Foundation argues that if cy pres does not apply, the doctrine of deviation should apply.

2002Fackler v. Genetzky, 257 Neb. 130 , 595 N.W.2d 884 (1999).

2002Fackler v. Genetzky, 257 Neb. 130 , 595 N.W.2d 884 (1999).

2000McLaughlin v. Hellbusch, 256 Neb. 615 , 591 N.W.2d 569 (1999); Doe v. Zedek, 255 Neb. 963 , 587 N.W.2d 885 (1999).

2000McLaughlin v. Hellbusch, 256 Neb. 615 , 591 N.W.2d 569 (1999); Doe v. Zedek, 255 Neb. 963 , 587 N.W.2d 885 (1999).

1998For example, in Gugliano v. Levi, 24 A.D.2d 591 , 262 N.Y.S.2d 372 (1965), the court held that it was error to permit one party in a malpractice case to call an opposing party’s consulting expert to testify on the issue of whether there had been a deviation from the standard of care, where there was no showing that the party could not obtain his own expert and the opinion of the opposing party’s expert was based solely upon a review of records and “was not formulated upon the basis of his physical or clinical examination of the plaintiff, so as to make his report available to the plaintiff as

1998For example, in Gugliano v. Levi, 24 A.D.2d 591 , 262 N.Y.S.2d 372 (1965), the court held that it was error to permit one party in a malpractice case to call an opposing party’s consulting expert to testify on the issue of whether there had been a deviation from the standard of care, where there was no showing that the party could not obtain his own expert and the opinion of the opposing party’s expert was based solely upon a review of records and “was not formulated upon the basis of his physical or clinical examination of the plaintiff, so as to make his report available to the plaintiff as

1992The Delgado court also stated, “In proving a deviation from the standard of merchantability, some proof of noncompliance with the warranty must be presented.” Id. at 668 , 433 N.W.2d at 184 .

1984As stated in Geiger v. Sweeney, 201 Neb. 175 , 266 N.W.2d 895 (1978), to establish a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, there must be proof that there was a deviation from the standard of merchantability at the time of sale and that such deviation caused the plaintiffs injury both proximately and in fact.

1984As stated in Geiger v. Sweeney, 201 Neb. 175 , 266 N.W.2d 895 (1978), to establish a breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, there must be proof that there was a deviation from the standard of merchantability at the time of sale and that such deviation caused the plaintiffs injury both proximately and in fact.