Court Opinion

ID: 9659114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 21:32:37.010131+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:04.204699
License: Public Domain

*355Caporale, J.,
dissenting.
Although I agree with the majority’s ruling, I write separately because I fear the treatment it accords Dr. Suzanne Bohn’s testimony bespeaks a disquieting tolerance for sloppiness.
Bohn is a clinical psychologist, not a doctor of medicine. Thus, she should have been asked to express her opinions not in terms of reasonable medical certainty, but in terms of reasonable psychological certainty. In re Interest of D.S. and T.S., 236 Neb. 413, 461 N.W.2d 415 (1990). Yet, either because she did not listen to the question or because she is quite willing to take unto herself credentials she does not possess, she unabashedly undertook to speak as a doctor of medicine. Neither phenomenon is mere surplusage; her testimony should be discredited as a matter of law.