Schuemann v. Timperley

Summary

The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendant ophthalmologist on a medical malpractice claim premised entirely on lack of informed consent arising from cataract surgeries performed after the patient had undergone radial keratotomy. Although a genuine factual dispute existed over whether the physician disclosed the risks associated with the prior RK procedures, the patient's complete failure of proof on proximate cause — he designated no medical expert and his own lay testimony was incompetent on causation — rendered that dispute immaterial. The court rejected his common knowledge exception argument as too generalized and vague, and rejected his 'self evident damage' theory as raised for the first time on appeal and foreclosed by the statutory proximate cause requirement. Vaughn, J., did not participate.