The Nebraska Supreme Court recently affirmed a lower court's ruling in a medical malpractice case involving Richard G. Schuemann and Dr. Brent D. Timperley. Schuemann alleged that Timperley failed to obtain his informed consent before performing cataract surgeries. The court's decision, filed on August 7, 2026, has implications for medical malpractice claims and the requirements for proving informed consent.
The case began when Schuemann sought treatment for vision issues in early 2018. He was referred to Timperley, a board-certified ophthalmologist in Omaha, Nebraska. Timperley performed cataract surgery on Schuemann's left eye on March 19, 2018, and on his right eye on April 2, 2018. After the surgeries, Schuemann reported blurry vision, leading to an additional procedure on his left eye. Eventually, he developed retinal detachments in both eyes, which required further surgery by a different physician.
On April 2, 2020, Schuemann filed a medical malpractice complaint against Timperley in the Douglas County District Court. He claimed that Timperley breached the standard of care by not adequately informing him of the risks associated with cataract surgery, particularly given his previous radial keratotomy (RK) procedures. Schuemann argued that had he been properly informed, he would not have undergone the surgeries. Timperley denied the allegations and asserted that he met the standard of care.
Initially, Timperley moved for summary judgment, arguing that Schuemann's claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The district court granted this motion, but Schuemann appealed, and the Nebraska Supreme Court reversed the decision, allowing the case to proceed.
Upon remand, the district court set a deadline for Schuemann to disclose expert witnesses. When he failed to do so, Timperley filed a second motion for summary judgment. During this hearing, Timperley provided an affidavit stating that he had discussed the risks and benefits of cataract surgery with Schuemann, including the specific risks associated with his prior RK procedures. He maintained that his actions met the applicable standard of care and that Schuemann's complications were not due to any negligence on his part.
In response, Schuemann presented his own deposition and affidavits, claiming that Timperley had not informed him of the risks. However, the district court ultimately granted summary judgment in favor of Timperley, concluding that Schuemann had failed to prove proximate cause. The court noted that to recover damages for lack of informed consent, Schuemann needed to demonstrate that a reasonable person in his position would have refused the surgery if properly informed and that the lack of information caused his injuries.
The court ruled, "the evidence on summary judgment established a complete failure of proof on the material element of causation."
The Nebraska Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the lower court's ruling. The court acknowledged that while there was a factual dispute regarding whether Timperley breached the standard of care, Schuemann's failure to provide expert testimony on causation rendered the factual dispute immaterial. The court emphasized that in medical malpractice cases, expert testimony is typically required to establish causation unless the common knowledge exception applies, which was not the case here.
This ruling has significant implications for future medical malpractice claims in Nebraska. It reinforces the necessity for plaintiffs to provide expert testimony to prove proximate cause in cases involving informed consent. Additionally, the decision clarifies the limitations of the common knowledge exception, indicating that it only applies in cases of extreme and obvious misconduct.
Looking ahead, it is unclear whether Schuemann will seek to appeal this decision or if there are any related cases pending. The court's ruling in this case serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in medical malpractice claims and the importance of proper documentation and communication between healthcare providers and patients.