Yagodinski v. Sutton

Printer-friendly versionPrinter-friendly versionPDF versionPDF version

Yagodinski v. Sutton

Additional Case Names

9:25 am


Case Number
Call Date
December 1, 2020
Case Time
9:00 AM
Court Number
Case Location
Court Type
District Court
Case Summary

S-20-0317 Gina Yagodinski v. Brad Sutton

Sarpy County District Court, Hon. George A. Thompson

Attorneys: James E. Harris & Britany S. Shotkoski (Harris & Associates, P.C., L.L.O. for Appellant) --- Thomas A. Grennan & Eric J. Sutton (Gross & Welch, P.C., L.L.O., for Appellee)

Civil: Personal injury; Motion in limine; Exclusion of proposed expert testimony

Proceedings below: Upon remand from the Nebraska Supreme Court, the district court held a second hearing on Appellee’s motion in limine and again excluded the proposed expert testimony.

Issues on Appeal: Whether the district court erred 1) upon remand in failing to follow the four step Daubert/Schafersman analytical process; 2) in failing to apply the correct legal standards for determining whether a witness is qualified as an expert; 3) in interpreting statutory scope of practice law and regulations by: a) failing to give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning; and b) by both reading a meaning into a statute that is not there and reading anything direct and plain out of a statute, c) in failing to analyze and determine whether the reasoning or methodology underlying the testimony is valid/reliable, d) by failing to examine the evidence to determine whether the methodology and protocols were properly applied and followed, e) in failing to undertake a §27-403 balancing analysis of probative value versus danger of unfair prejudice, f) in violating its gatekeeping function by improperly determining the weight and credibility of a chiropractic or/chiropractic physician’s expert testimony, g) in finding the entire field of chiropractic/chiropractic physicians, and chiropractic neurology unreliable and inadmissible despite Nebraska statutory "scope of practice" rules and regulations and supporting evidence, and h) law in excluding chiropractic testimony of closed head injury or concussion simply because the court did not deem the proposed expert to be the best qualified or in a specialization which the court considers most appropriate.

Schedule Code