Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants (supplemental opinion) , 297 Neb. 568 ( 2017 )

Nebraska Supreme Court Online Library
www.nebraska.gov/apps-courts-epub/
11/17/2017 01:12 AM CST
- 568 -
Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
297 Nebraska R eports
COHAN v. MEDICAL IMAGING CONSULTANTS
Cite as 297 Neb. 568
M ary Cohan and Terry Cohan, individually
and as wife and husband, appellants and
cross-appellees, v.Medical Imaging
Consultants, P.C., et al., appellees
and cross-appellants.
___ N.W.2d ___
Filed August 25, 2017. No. S-16-145.
supplemental opinion
Appeal from the District Court for Douglas County: James T.
Gleason, Judge. Supplemental opinion: Former opinion modi-
fied. Motions for rehearing overruled.
Richard J. Rensch and Sean P. Rensch, of Rensch & Rensch
Law, P.C., L.L.O., for appellants.
David D. Ernst and Kellie Chesire Olson, of Pansing, Hogan,
Ernst & Bachman, L.L.P., for appellees Medical Imaging
Consultants, P.C., and Robert M. Faulk, M.D.
William R. Settles and Kate Geyer Johnson, of Lamson,
Dugan & Murray, L.L.P., for appellees Bellevue Obstetrics and
Gynecology Associates, P.C., et al.
Heavican, C.J., Wright, Miller-Lerman, Cassel, Stacy, and
K elch, JJ.
- 569 -
Nebraska Supreme Court A dvance Sheets
297 Nebraska R eports
COHAN v. MEDICAL IMAGING CONSULTANTS
Cite as 297 Neb. 568
Per Curiam.
We consider the appellees’ motions for rehearing concern-
ing our opinion in Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants.1
We overrule the motions, but we modify the original opinion
as follows:
In the section of the opinion designated “3. Cross-Appeals
by Appellees,” we add a sentence at the end of the first
paragraph,2 such that the paragraph reads as follows:
Appellees’ cross-appeals assign as error the admission
of Dr. Naughton’s testimony. Appellees moved to strike
Dr. Naughton’s testimony because they claimed that only
Mary’s prognosis at the time of trial was relevant and that
Nebraska did not recognize a theory of recovery based
upon loss of chance. The district court, in overruling
the motions to strike, found that Dr. Naughton’s opinion
was relevant for the limited purpose of establishing that
early discovery of cancer leads to a better prognosis. We
understand the district court to have used “prognosis” to
refer to the risk of recurrence and the probability of an
improved outcome.
The remainder of the opinion shall remain unmodified.
Former opinion modified.
Motions for rehearing overruled.
Funke, J., not participating.
1
Cohan v. Medical Imaging Consultants, ante p. 111, ___ N.W.2d ___
(2017).
2
Id. at 129-130, ___ N.W.2d at ___.