Opinion ID: 1965004
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 14

Heading: Directed Verdict for Schulte

Text: Brianna's first assignment of error is that the trial court erred in directing a verdict for Schulte at the close of her case. A trial court should direct a verdict as a matter of law only when the facts are conceded, undisputed, or such that reasonable minds can draw but one conclusion therefrom. McLaughlin v. Hellbusch, 256 Neb. 615, 591 N.W.2d 569 (1999); Cobb v. Sure Crop Chem. Co., 255 Neb. 625, 587 N.W.2d 355 (1998). Brianna contends that the evidence was sufficient to support the conclusion that Schulte's negligence, during the telephone call on December 21, 1992, proximately caused some of her injuries. The testimony offered at trial, however, indicates otherwise. On direct examination, when Robertson was asked if, in his opinion, Schulte had met Robertson's understanding of the standard of care, Robertson testified: [A] I think it's more likely than not, [the pregnancy] would not have prolonged for any length of time. I think the difference there is Mrs. Snyder might not have had to have undergone an emergency Cesarean and fetal distress because that was strictly related to her seizure activity. Had she been treated for seizures, the baby may not have to be delivered at that exact moment. .... Q Do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of probability as to what length of time it could have been prolonged as of that time? .... Q What is your opinion? A I think it would have been  you'd be looking at best 24 to 48 hours to get steroid therapy in at that point. Q Do you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of probability as to whether the degree of disability of the child would have been lessened if the pregnancy had been prolonged as of that date? .... [A] Without knowing whether or not you could have gotten the time for the steroid, if you couldn't have gotten the time for steroid therapy, it would have been no different. If you've gotten time for steroid therapy, there's no question it would improve the outcome. On cross-examination, Robertson was asked, [A]ssuming that what the information you've been given is accurate ... more likely than not that [December 21] phone conversation was irrelevant to the outcome of this delivery? He conceded, Yes. On redirect examination, Robertson testified: Q ... [D]o you have an opinion based upon a reasonable degree of medical probability as to whether the delay which occurred between 4:30 a.m. and the time of the actual delivery of the infant on the 21st of December, 1992, caused some injury to Brianna Snyder; do you have an opinion? A Yes. Q What's your opinion? .... [A] It's my opinion that Dr. Schulte had the least opportunity to make a difference in what happened in the sense that Mrs. Snyder had gotten real sick from no treatment and that given the timeframe, there's likelihood that she probably would have seized once before getting treatment. And with that, that's going to change it. Whether she would have had a second seizure or needed an emergency Cesarean section such that the baby needed to be delivered at that particular time, that's where I would haveI would say more likely than not. There are [sic] little time to be bought but certainly not any significant amount of time. .... Q Any time that could be bought, would that be beneficial to the infant? .... [A] Once again, I think if you look at the literature, the minimum time in '92 would have thought probably was 48 hours and 72 hours was the maximum. In reality it's probably about 12 hours. Whether there could have been 12 hours bought, that's difficult to say. I would think at best would be a toss up and it's more likely than not that it would not have been that length of time. Even taken in the light most favorable to Brianna, this testimony is insufficient to establish to a reasonable degree of medical certainty that Schulte's conduct was the proximate cause of any of Brianna's injuries. In fact, even in the light most favorable to Brianna, this testimony from Brianna's expert witness appears to establish precisely the opposite. The trial court did not err in directing a verdict in favor of Schulte, as Brianna presented no evidence that Schulte's negligence proximately caused any of her injuries.