Oral Arguments are happening now. View them on the web or via Mobile App on iPhone / iPad or Android (4.0+).

You are here

Doe v. Board of Regents of The University of Nebraska

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly version
Date: 
Thursday, November 7, 2013

S-12-1136, John Doe (Appellant) v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska; University of Nebraska medical Center; John Gollan, M.D., Ph.D., Jeffrey Hill, M.D., Carl Smith, M.D., Sonja Kinney, M.D., David O’Dell, M.d., Wendy Grant, M.D., Sharon Stoolman, M.D., Michael Spann, M.D., in those individuals’ official and individual capacities

Douglas County, Judge Shelly S. Stratman

Attorneys: John Doe (Pro Se Appellant) --- Amy L. Longo, Lawrence K. Sheehan (Ellick Jones Buelt Blazek & Longo LLP)

Civil: Violations of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act

Proceedings below: This appeal was previously before the Supreme Court. See Doe v. Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska, 280 Neb. 492 (2010) (affirmed in part and in part reversed and remanded for further proceedings). On remand, Appellant filed an amended complaint and a second amended complaint. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment which was granted by the district court.

Issues: 1. With respect to the sustained portion of the Motion to Compel (Fourth Set of

Requests for Production of Documents No. 18), the District Court erred by not compelling the Appellant's request to produce the actual documents with personally identifiable information redacted. 2. With respect to the remaining portion of the Motion to Compel (Third Set of

Requests for Production of Documents Nos. 16 and 17), the District Court erred by not compelling (denying) the production of those requested documents. 3. The District Court continued the hearing on 8/17/12, and erred by not setting a new hearing date and ruling on a Motion for Summary Judgment without receiving evidence and allowing additional arguments relating to the sustained Motion to Compel the Fourth Set of Requests for Production of Documents No. 18. 4. The District Court erred by not considering all of the material facts in the

Pleadings, Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission, Affidavits, and Depositions. 5. The District Court erred by granting Summary Judgment when the Pleadings, Interrogatories, Requests for Production of Documents, Requests for Admission, Affidavits, and Depositions disclosed that there were genuine issues as to the material facts. 6. The District Court erred by not viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the Appellant and the Appellant was not given the benefit of all favorable inferences that may be drawn from the material facts in the evidence. 7. The District Court erred by determining how factual issues should be decided. 8. The District Court erred by not determining that the treatment of Appellant by the Appellees was discriminatory, prejudiced, arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith. 8.The District Court erred by not determining that the Appellant was otherwise qualified and not determining that the Appellant made and was denied sufficiently direct and specific requests for reasonable accommodations of his disability. 10. The District Court erred by not determining that the Appellant was excluded from participation in or was denied the benefits of the services, programs, and activities of UNMC on the basis of his disability and was subjected to discrimination by the Appellees.

 

This page was last modified on Thursday, November 7, 2013