Court Opinion

ID: 9670665
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:24:05.203757+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:05.877044
License: Public Domain

Fahrnbruch, J.,
dissenting.
The majority’s holding in this case defeats the purpose of this state’s statute of repose. According to the majority, there is no time limit as to when a patient must “discover” the alleged “malpractice” of a physician if the patient alleges facts sufficient to state a cause of action for fraudulent concealment *583against the physician. Under the majority rule, if a patient’s breast cancer is “discovered” 50 years following a physician’s alleged malpractice, the patient’s cause of action could withstand not only Nebraska’s statute of limitations but also this state’s statute of repose, the very purpose of both of which is to prevent stale claims and which, in my opinion, should apply to all causes of action. I respectfully dissent.