Stacey L. Komar, Appellant,
State of Nebraska et al., Appellees.
Statutes: Appeal and Error. Statutory interpretation is a
matter of law, in connection with which an appellate court
has an obligation to reach an independent conclusion
irrespective of the determination made by the court below.
Claims Act. Tort claims brought against the State must be
brought in accordance with the provisions of the State Tort
Claims Act, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 81-8, 209 et seq. (Reissue
Claims Act: Limitations of Actions. A claimant who could have
withdrawn a claim from the State Claims Board prior to the
expiration of the 2-year statute of limitations should be
given an additional 6 months from the time the claimant could
have withdrawn the claim from the State Claims Board, rather
than an additional 6 months from the time the claimant
actually withdrew the claim, to file a complaint in the
Statutes: Judicial Construction: Legislature: Presumptions:
Intent. When judicial interpretation of a statute has not
evoked a legislative amendment, an appellate court presumes
that the Legislature has acquiesced in the court's
Estoppel: Fraud: Limitations of Actions. The equitable
doctrine of estoppel in pais may be applied to prevent a
fraudulent or inequitable resort to a statute of limitations,
and a defendant may, by his or her representations, promises,
or conduct, be so estopped where the other elements of
estoppel are present.
from the District Court for Douglas County: W. Russell Bowie
III, Judge. Affirmed.
E. Frost, of Johnson & Mock, P.C., L.L.O., for appellant.
M. Welch and John A. McWilliams, of Cassem, Tierney, Adams,
Gotch & Douglas, for appellees.
Pirtle, Bishop, and Arterburn, Judges.
L. Komar filed a complaint in the district court pursuant to
the provisions of the State Tort Claims Act, Neb. Rev. Stat.
§ 81-8, 209 et seq. (Reissue 2014), against the State of
Nebraska, the Board of Regents of the University of Nebraska,
and Nebraska Medicine (collectively the State). The district
court dismissed Komar's complaint, finding that the
allegations contained in the complaint were time barred.
Komar appeals from the district court's dismissal of her
complaint. Upon our review, we affirm the district
court's decision to dismiss Komar's complaint because
it was filed after the statute of limitations had expired.
15, 2015, Komar filed a complaint against the State. In the
complaint, she alleged that various employees of the State
had accessed her medical records without her permission and
without a proper purpose, in violation of both federal and
state laws. Specifically, Komar alleged that a pediatrician
employed by the State had improperly viewed Komar's
medical records on July 3, 2012. Komar alleged that she did
not learn of this incident until January 15, 2013. Komar also
alleged that a second employee of the State had improperly
viewed Komar's medical records on multiple dates between
July 16, 2012, and January 9, 2013. Komar alleged that she
did not learn of these incidents until January 8, 2014.
complaint, Komar indicated that on June 27, 2014, she filed
an "administrative notice" of the matters discussed
[24 Neb.App. 694] in her complaint with the "State of
Nebraska Division of Risk Management State Claims Board"
(the Board). Having received no disposition of her claim from
the Board or the risk manager, Komar indicated that she
withdrew her claim from ...