Nebraska Supreme Court Appeal win in a trucking case

On August 21, 2026, the Nebraska Supreme Court released its opinion in Elisban Bazan v. Elite Fleet Hauling, LLC, 322 Neb. 54, delivering a resounding victory to Erickson Sederstrom’s client, Elite Fleet Hauling, Inc. The Court affirmed a judgment after trial that awarded $100,000 to Mr. Bazan for injuries in a collision between his car and one of Elite Fleet’s trucks. Elite Fleet and its driver admitted negligence at trial, and a successful defense of the suit led to the verdict, which resulted in a much smaller damage award than Mr. Bazan sought from the jury. The case on appeal focused on what two experts were allowed, or not allowed, to testify about at the trial.

The Supreme Court first reconfirmed that district court judges have broad authority to enforce deadlines and procedures they set for parties with respect to pretrial disclosure, including requirements as to the specific details that must be contained in an expert’s opinions like whether and to what extent a collision caused injuries—in this case, traumatic brain injury. The Court also broke new ground in endorsing a non-physician’s ability to express opinions about the cause of claimed medical injuries that fall within the scope of the expert’s licensing—in this case, a licensed psychologist testifying from the perspective of an experienced neuropsychologist about a claim of a mild traumatic brain injury (“mTBI”).

On the first point, the Supreme Court agreed with the district court that the plaintiff’s expert, who had treated Mr. Bazan after the accident, could testify about the medical treatment but could not express causation opinions because the plaintiff’s attorney had failed to disclose such details contrary to the district court’s orders. The Court said it was not good enough to point at the stack of treatment records as the basis for the causation opinion without spelling out how the records support the opinion. Likewise, the Court also held that disclosure requirements are satisfied by simply disclosing that an expert’s opinions will be given at a later deposition. So, the Court held, it was proper to send the case to the jury after preventing the treating doctor from testifying that Mr. Bazan’s so-called mTBI was caused by the collision.

On the second point, Elite Fleet disclosed a neuropsychologist who offered opinions that Mr. Bazan did not suffer a mTBI at all. Naturally, Mr. Bazan wanted to keep this out of evidence, relying upon another case involving a chiropractor that really had no application under the facts of this case. Mr. Bazan argued that if a chiropractor cannot testify about a mTBI—as the Court previously held—then a neuropsychologist should not be allowed to do so either. The Court rightfully rejected this argument. The Court said the psychologist is different because, unlike a chiropractor, his assessment of brain injuries falls within the scope of the statutory definition of his permitted practice. Accordingly, the jury properly heard his testimony that there was no brain injury.

This case highlights what effective and diligent lawyering can do in a case. Erickson Sederstrom’s lawyers ensured that the district court judge was armed with the tools and information that he needed to enforce the court’s discovery orders and deadlines by challenging the plaintiff’s expert’s right to testify at every stage of the case—before, during, and after trial, and then on appeal—and defending its own expert’s testimony all along the way. Through this advocacy, Erickson Sederstrom lawyers strive to ensure that jurors hear the best evidence and that their client receives a fair and proper trial before a jury of their peers.