Who We Are

Our Lawyers

Meet the lawyers who will be working on your case. With more than 50 years of collective experience, we have much to offer you, including awards, accolades and nominations that cannot be matched.

Our Lawyers

Case Results

Mondelli v. Kendel Homes Corp.

With regard to the Mondellis' appeal, we conclude that the district court abused its discretion in excluding the testimony of Drs. Pour and King. This exclusion of evidence was prejudicial error. The district court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to allow joinder of the claims of the Mondelli family.

In The News

Our Lawyers
in the Media

At Domina Law Group we are fortunate to work on fascinating and compelling legal problems and lawsuits that change laws and affect our country – Media across the US and across the borders agree. Read stories and watch videos of our cases and with our lawyers.

Attorney Referrals

Our firm has a reputation as leaders in complex litigation.

Get the best result possible by partnering with us.

Our legal skills have been utilized in some of the most specialized and complicated cases. These cases were often referred to us by other professionals in the field. We honor and respect lawyers and other professionals who choose to refer complex cases to our law firm.

We have paid millions in fees to our co-counsel. Call us.

Contact Us

Contact Us Today

Send Your Message

Trial is legal surgery, the narrowest specialty, and it requires unique skills. Our clients want our service and hope they never need it again- like surgery.

Nebraska Court of Appeals Orders that Trial Occur

1. An aggrieved mother’s second appeal to the Nebraska Court of Appeals produced a second reversal and remand for trial in a mother’s quest to present the circumstances of her daughter’s final illness to a jury.

2. To make a submissible case, the Court of Appeals, in Scott v. Kahn, 18 Neb App 600, held the magic words: “indicating that an expert’s opinion is based on the reasonable degree of medical certainty or probability are not necessary.” Where an expert witness who is competent expresses the ability to do so, and the witness makes it clear the defendant physician’s care is substandard and proximately caused an adverse outcome.

3. The Court of Appeal’s 17-page public Opinion extensively reviews the governing principles and concludes issues germane to the patient’s final illness should be tried to a jury. The Opinion, involving allegations of psychiatric malpractice, will now require trial to a jury occurs. Read the Court of Appeals' Opinion here.

October, 2010

Categories: Medical Malpractice

How Can We Help You?

Tell us about your case.

Send Your Message