(1) The filing of the request for review of a claim shall toll the applicable statute of limitations for a period of ninety days following the issuance of the opinion by the medical review panel. The request for review of a claim shall be deemed filed when copy of the request together with a copy of the proposed complaint is delivered or mailed by registered or certified mail to the director, who shall immediately forward a copy to each health care provider named as a defendant at his last and usual place of residence or his office.
(2) The report or any minority report of the medical review panel shall be admissible as evidence in any action subsequently brought by the claimant in a court of law, but such report shall not be conclusive and either party shall have the right to call any member of the medical review panel as a witness. If called, the witness shall be required to appear and testify.
(3) A panelist shall have absolute immunity from civil liability for all communications, findings, opinions and conclusions made in the course and scope of duties prescribed by sections 44-2801 to 44-2855.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases, 1985–2013 · leading case:
Simon v. Drake, 829 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 2013).
Simon v. Drake, 829 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 2013).
“On appeal, we concluded that the court improperly admitted the report for those treatment dates in which the physician was not qualified under the act. We rejected the defendant physi- cian’s argument that the error was not prejudicial because there was independent evidence to…”
Alegent Health Bergan Mercy Med. v. Haworth, 615 N.W.2d 460 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Exactly 2 years later, on February 11, 1998, the special administrator filed a notice of claim and proposed petition with the Nebraska Department of Insurance pursuant to § 44-2844. In his notice of claim, the special administrator requested that a medical review panel consider…”
Jacobs v. Goetowski, 376 N.W.2d 773 (Neb. 1985).
· cites it 38× “I specifically dissent because I believe that the majority has misinterpreted the provisions of Neb.Rev.Stat. § 44-2844 (Reissue 1978). The majority declares that under the provisions of § 44-2844 the running of the statute of limitations is interrupted during the time the claim…”
Barry v. Bohi, 380 N.W.2d 249 (Neb. 1986).
· cites it 2× “" § 44-2844(2); Prendergast v. Nelson, supra .”
Smith v. Graham, 147 P.3d 859 (Kan. 2006).
“§ 27-6-702 (2005); Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2844 (2004); Utah Code Ann.”
Alegent Health Bergan Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Hawort, 615 N.W.2d 460 (Neb. 2000).
· cites it 3× “Exactly 2 years later, on February 11, 1998, the special administrator filed a notice of claim and proposed petition with the Nebraska Department of Insurance pursuant to § 44-2844. In his notice of claim, the special administrator requested that a medical review panel consider…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2844(1) — 2 cases
Alegent Health Bergan Mercy Med. v. Haworth, 615 N.W.2d 460 (Neb. 2000).
“Exactly 2 years later, on February 11, 1998, the special administrator filed a notice of claim and proposed petition with the Nebraska Department of Insurance pursuant to § 44-2844. In his notice of claim, the special administrator requested that a medical review panel consider…”
Alegent Health Bergan Mercy Med. Ctr. v. Hawort, 615 N.W.2d 460 (Neb. 2000).
“Exactly 2 years later, on February 11, 1998, the special administrator filed a notice of claim and proposed petition with the Nebraska Department of Insurance pursuant to § 44-2844. In his notice of claim, the special administrator requested that a medical review panel consider…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 44-2844(2) — 2 cases
Simon v. Drake, 829 N.W.2d 686 (Neb. 2013).
“On appeal, we concluded that the court improperly admitted the report for those treatment dates in which the physician was not qualified under the act. We rejected the defendant physi- cian’s argument that the error was not prejudicial because there was independent evidence to…”
Barry v. Bohi, 380 N.W.2d 249 (Neb. 1986).
“" § 44-2844(2); Prendergast v. Nelson, supra .”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.