Any action to recover damages based on alleged professional negligence or upon alleged breach of warranty in rendering or failure to render professional services shall be commenced within two years next after the alleged act or omission in rendering or failure to render professional services providing the basis for such action; Provided, if the cause of action is not discovered and could not be reasonably discovered within such two-year period, then the action may be commenced within one year from the date of such discovery or from the date of discovery of facts which would reasonably lead to such discovery, whichever is earlier; and provided further, that in no event may any action be commenced to recover damages for professional negligence or breach of warranty in rendering or failure to render professional services more than ten years after the date of rendering or failure to render such professional service which provides the basis for the cause of action.
Ames v. Hehner, 231 Neb. 152, 435 N.W.2d 869 (1989). (The plaintiff suffered pain and disability in her right shoulder and arm as a result of improper positioning during an unrelated surgery. She filed suit when she discovered that her disability was permanent. The Supreme Court of Nebraska affirmed the defendant surgeon's demurrer, holding that the statute of limitations began to run at the time the plaintiff ceased receiving medical treatment from the defendant surgeon, regardless of the time she discovered that her injury was permanent.)
Sacchi v. Blodig, 215 Neb. 817, 341 N.W.2d 326 (1983). (The discovey rule permits an action begun after the statutory period has elapsed where the plaintiff was insane but instituted the action upon removal of the disability, notwithstanding that the statute bars actions based on professional negligence begun more than ten years after the alleged negligence.)
Frezell v. Iwersen, 231 Neb. 365, 436 N.W.2d 194 (1989). (The defendant surgeon treated the plaintiff over a period of four years, during which time the surgeon told the plaintiff that she had a 100% permanent physical disability. The trial court held that the claim was barred by the statute of limitations, and the supreme court affirmed. The court held that the discovery exception did not apply in light of the physician's disclosures, and that the plaintiff's injury resulted from a single, isolated surgical incident which did not come under the continuous treatment rule. Finally, the court held that the defendant was not estopped from relying on the statute of limitations by fraudulent concealment.)
Muller v. Thaut, 230 Neb. 244, 430 N.W.2d 884 (1988). (A physician is under a duty to disclose material information including the cause of death of a patient, and failure to do so is fraudulent concealment. Fraudulent concealment estops the defendant from asserting the statute of limitations as a defense.)