Opinion ID: 1659270
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: analysis

Text: The Tort Claims Act is the exclusive means by which a tort claim may be maintained against a political subdivision or its employees. Keller v. Tavarone, 262 Neb. 2, 628 N.W.2d 222 (2001). While not a jurisdictional prerequisite, the filing or presentment of a claim to the appropriate political subdivision is a condition precedent to commencement of a suit under the Tort Claims Act. Id. Section 13-920(1) provides, in relevant part, that [n]o suit shall be commenced against any employee of a political subdivision for money on account of damage to or loss of property or personal injury to or the death of any person caused by any negligent or wrongful act or omission of the employee while acting in the scope of his or her office or employment ... unless a claim has been submitted in writing to the governing body of the political subdivision within one year after such claim accrued.... Keller's claim for medical malpractice accrued on May 27, 1997, but Keller did not file a claim with the political subdivision until January 27, 2000. It is, therefore, undisputed that Keller did not comply with the 1-year filing deadline set forth by § 13-920(1). We stated in the first suit, Keller v. Tavarone, 262 Neb. at 15, 628 N.W.2d at 232, that the procedure the statutes required Keller to follow was, first, to file a claim with the appropriate officer of the political subdivision, pursuant to § 13-905, within 1 year of the accrual of her claim. After the claim was disposed of or withdrawn, pursuant to § 13-906, Keller would have been permitted to either submit a proposed petition to a review panel, or waive such review, pursuant to § 44-2840(3) and (4). If she had presented the petition to a review panel, she would have had an extra 90 days, after the issuance of the opinion of the review panel, to file suit under the Tort Claims Act. See § 13-919(4). If she had waived the panel review, the action under the Tort Claims Act would have been filed directly in the district court. See, § 44-2840(4); § 13-907. The operation of the NHMLA, however, did not excuse Keller from compliance with the requirement under the Tort Claims Act that the claim be presented to the political subdivision prior to filing suit. As Keller concedes that no claim was filed with the political subdivision prior to filing suit, her petition was properly dismissed pursuant to § 13-920(1). Keller argues that the claim which provides the basis for the instant case was timely filed with the political subdivision pursuant to § 13-919(2), which provides, in relevant part, that [i]f a claim is made or filed under any other law of this state and a determination is made by a political subdivision or court that the act provides the exclusive remedy for the claim, the time to make a claim and to begin suit under the act shall be extended for a period of six months from the date of the court order making such determination or the date of mailing of notice to the claimant of such determination by the political subdivision if the time to make the claim and to begin suit under the act would otherwise expire before the end of such period. Keller argues that her first suit, pursuant to the NHMLA, was a claim made ... under any other law of this state and that she had an additional 6 months from the dismissal of the first lawsuit to file a claim with the political subdivision. Even assuming that a medical malpractice lawsuit is a claim made ... under any other law of this statea matter we need not decidethe problem with Keller's argument is that such an expansive reading of § 13-919(2) would result in the functional abrogation of §§ 13-919(1) and 13-920(1). If Keller's argument were correct, then any potential claimant who had allowed the 1-year filing deadline of the Tort Claims Act to pass could revive that claim by filing a lawsuit in district court. When that lawsuit was dismissed, the claimant could then file a claim with a political subdivision. Clearly, Keller's broad reading of § 13-919(2) is inconsistent with the legislative purpose expressed by the 1-year filing deadlines of §§ 13-919(1) and 13-920(1). The taxpaying public has an interest in seeing that prompt and thorough investigation of claims is made where a political subdivision is involved, and the taxpayers who provide the public treasury with funds have an interest in protecting that treasury from stale claims. See Campbell v. City of Lincoln, 195 Neb. 703, 240 N.W.2d 339 (1976). The primary purpose of notice provisions in connection with actions against political subdivisions is to afford municipal authorities prompt notice of the accident and injury in order that an investigation may be made while the occurrence is still fresh and the municipal authorities are in a position to intelligently consider the claim and to allow it if deemed just or, in the alternative, to adequately protect and defend the public interest. Id. Keller's suggested interpretation of § 13-919(2) would frustrate the purpose of the notice provisions. However, a court must place on a statute a reasonable construction which best achieves the statute's purpose, rather than a construction which would defeat the statute's purpose. A-1 Metro Movers v. Egr, 264 Neb. 291, 647 N.W.2d 593 (2002). Keller's reading of § 13-919(2) would also open a loophole in the notice provisions of the Tort Claims Act that would effectively extend the filing deadline for a tort claim against a political subdivision until no timely claim could be brought under any other state law. This would, as a practical matter, render §§ 13-919(1) and 13-920(1) meaningless. However, effect must be given, if possible, to all the several parts of a statute, and no sentence, clause, or word should be rejected as meaningless or superfluous if it can be avoided. Omaha Pub. Power Dist. v. Nebraska Dept. of Revenue, 248 Neb. 518, 537 N.W.2d 312 (1995). We recognize that Keller's interpretation of § 13-919(2) is not necessarily inconsistent with the statutory language. It is, however, inconsistent with the statutory purpose reflected in the notice provisions of §§ 13-919(1) and 13-920(1). An appellate court will place a sensible construction upon a statute to effectuate the object of the legislation, as opposed to a literal meaning that would have the effect of defeating the legislative intent. A-1 Metro Movers v. Egr, supra. The evident purpose of the 6-month extension of the filing deadline set forth in § 13-919(2) is to provide claimants who filed timely claims, but filed those claims with the wrong tribunal or pursuant to the wrong statute, enough time to present their claims to the proper political subdivision. This requires, however, that those claimants still act promptly in order to satisfy the public purpose reflected in the notice requirements. We conclude, therefore, that a claim made or filed under any other law of this state, within the meaning of § 13-919(2), must still be filed within the 1-year time limit imposed by the appropriate notice provision of either § 13-919(1) or § 13-920(1). If a claimant files a claim within 1 year of the accrual of the claim, but files that claim with the wrong tribunal or pursuant to the wrong statute, then § 13-919(2) provides the claimant with an additional 6 months, from the determination that the Tort Claims Act provides the exclusive remedy, to file a claim with the appropriate political subdivision as provided in § 13-905. In this case, it is not disputed that Keller's first lawsuit under the NHMLA was not filed within 1 year of the accrual of the claim. Therefore, Keller did not comply with the notice provision of § 13-920(1), and her subsequent claim to the political subdivision was untimely. Consequently, the district court correctly dismissed Keller's petition, and the judgment of the district court must be affirmed. AFFIRMED.