Tag: NRS 41A.071

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for July 9, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for July 9, 2020

State, Dep’t of Taxation v. Dist. Ct.

  • Does a government entity have possession, custody, or control over the content on the personnel cell phones of former workers hired through a temporary employment agency so as to be required under NRCP 16.1 to disclose that material.

Anthony S. Noonan IRA, LLC v. U.S. Bank

  • Can the entire amount of a homeowner’s association (HOA) yearly assessment be included in the superpriority piece of an HOA’s lien under 116.3116.

Kuptz-Blinkinsop v. Blinkinsop

  • Does NRS 11.190(1)(a), which requires that an action on a divorce decree commence within six years, apply to claims of enforcement of real property distribution in divorce decrees.

Est. of Curtis v. S. Las Vegas Med. Inv’rs

  • Is a nurse’s mistake in administering a drug to one patient, when the drug was prescribed to a different patient, as well as the alleged failure to thereafter monitor the patient, a matter of professional negligence subject to NRS 41A.071’s affidavit requirement.

Matthews v. State

  • Did the court error in denying a defendant’s Batson objection.

State, Dep’t of Corr. v. DeRosa

  • Does NRCP 4.2(a) require personal service of a petition for judicial review of an agency’s decision.

Nelson v. Nelson

  • Are orders denying a request for a joint preliminary injunction pursuant to EDCR 5.157 in a family law matter appealable under NRAP 3AA(b)(3).

Spencer v. Klementi

  • Does Nevada’s absolute privilege that attaches to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings extend to statements made during the public-comment period of a planning-commission or improvement-district meeting,

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 2, 2020

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for April 2, 2020

Cummings v. Barber

  • Does Nevada NRS 41A.100, Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute, apply where a surgeon fails to remove a foreign object that was implanted and left inside a patient’s body during a previous surgery.

Jaramillo v. Ramos

  • Must a plaintiff relying on NRS 41A.100, Nevada’s res ipsa loquitur statute’s presumption for a prima facie case of negligence in a medical malpractice action, provide expert testimony to survive a defendant’s summary judgment motion.

Jones v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n

  • Pursuant to NRS 104.3309, how must an enforcing party show that it had the right to enforce a note when it lost possession or acquired ownership of the note from a party that had the right to enforce it.

LVMPD v. Ctr. for Investigative Reporting

  • Does a requesting party, who requests nonconfidential public records from a governmental entity, prevail for the purposes of awarding attorney fees and costs when the parties reach an agreement that affords the requesting party access to the requested records before the court enters judgment on the merits.

145 E. Harmon II Tr. v. Res. at MGM Grand

  • Does a voluntary dismissal with prejudice convey prevailing party status on a defendant to allow the recovery of attorney fees and costs pursuant to NRS 18.010 and NRS 18.020.

In re Colman Family Revocable Living Tr.

  • Does NRS 111.781, which governs the effects of divorce on nonprobate transfers of property, revoke a spouse’s interest in property.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 4, 2018

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 4, 2018

HOWARD VS. HUGHES

  • Must the initial presumption that cotenants share equally be successfully rebutted through evidence of lack of relatedness or donative intent prior to the court dividing the property or proceeds.

DOLORFINO VS. UNIV. MED. CTR. OF S. NEVADA

  • When is a plaintiff required to attach a supporting affidavit from a medical expert to a complaint for the purposes of NRS 41A.100(1)(d).

RODRIGUEZ VS. FIESTA PALMS, LLC

  • Did the district court abuse its discretion when it denied a 60(b)(1) motion for relief to an unrepresented litigant who knowingly neglected procedural requirements and then failed to promptly move for relief.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 28, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for December 28, 2017

MCCROSKY VS. CARSON TAHOE REG’L MED. CTR.

  • Under what circumstances can a hospital be vicariously liable for the alleged negligence of a doctor who works at the hospital as an independent contractor.
  • Can evidence of Medicaid payments made on behalf of a plaintiff be introduced in a medical malpractice action.

BOCA PARK MARKETPLACE SYNDICATIONS GRP., LLC VS. HIGCO, INC.

  • Does the doctrine of claim preclusion prevent a tenant from suing its landlord for contract damages after having won an earlier suit against the landlord for declaratory judgment, where both suits concern the same underlying facts.

BROWN (WILLIS) VS. DIST. CT. (STATE)

  • What is the standard for determining indigency for the appointment of counsel for purposes of Widdis.
  • Must an indigent defendant request a sum certain before a motion for defense services at public expense can be considered or granted

SEGOVIA, PA-C VS. DIST. CT. (DUDA)

  • Do the 2015 Legislature amendments, adding physician assistants to NRS 41A.017, apply retroactively so as to cap their damages in medical malpractice actions.

EUREKA CTY. VS. DIST. CT. (SADLER RANCH, LLC)

  • Are junior water rights holders entitled to notice of and an opportunity to participate in a district court’s consideration of a curtailment request.

RODRIGUEZ (DANIEL) VS. STATE

  • What is the definition of “deadly weapon” within the context of battery.

HAWKINS VS. DIST. CT. (GGP MEADOWS MALL)

  • What should a district court  consider when awarding attorney fees sought for work done by a disqualified firm.

PECK VS. VALLEY HOSP. MED. CTR.

  • Does either statutory res ipsa loquitur or the common knowledge res ipsa loquitur doctrine provide an exception to the expert affidavit requirement for a medical malpractice complaint.
  • Is NRS 41A.071 unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause or Due Process Clause, facially, or as applied to inmates or indigent persons.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 26, 2017

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Nevada Appellate Courts Advance Opinions for October 26, 2017

SZYMBORSKI VS. SPRING MTN. TREATMENT CTR.

  • How should a court determine whether a claim is for medical malpractice or ordinary negligence when dismissing a claim for failing to attach a medical expert affidavit pursuant to NRS 41A.071.

CLARK CNTY. SCHOOL DIST. VS. PAYO

  • Does the implied assumption of risk doctrine bar a student’s negligence action arising from injuries the student sustained while participating in a required activity during a physical education class.
  • How does discretionary-function immunity apply to the Clark County School District’s decision to add a floor hockey unit to the P.E. curriculum.

Visit the Nevada Appellate Report for more legal news.

Must a medical expert’s affidavit accompany a medical malpractice complaint at the time of filing?

Posted on by Jeff Jaeger

Baxter v. Dignity Health (Nev. Supreme Ct. – Sep. 24, 2015)

This case arises from an order dismissing a medical malpractice action under NRS 41A.071. Adopted in 2002 to curb baseless malpractice litigation, NRS 41A.071 provides that a district court shall dismiss a medical malpractice action if the action is filed without an affidavit or declaration from a medical expert supporting the allegations of malpractice. In this case, the plaintiff consulted with a medical expert, from whom he obtained the supporting declaration required, before filing suit. For reasons unclear, the plaintiff did not attach the declaration to the complaint. Instead, he filed the complaint by itself, then filed the separately captioned declaration the next morning. The complaint incorporated the declaration by reference, and vice versa, and the two documents were served together on the defendants before the statute of limitations ran. The issue is whether NRS 41A.071 required dismissal of the complaint.

Baxter is a type 1 diabetic who presented to the emergency room in August 2012 with an acute infection. He alleged that the respondent hospital and doctors committed medical malpractice by misdiagnosing his infection as viral, not bacterial. Baxter further alleged that, had the correct diagnosis been timely made, his cervical spine abscess should and could have been successfully treated with antibiotics. The delay in proper diagnosis and treatment has allegedly left him a ventilator-dependent tetraplegic who will require 24-hour nursing care for the rest of his life.

Continue reading “Must a medical expert’s affidavit accompany a medical malpractice complaint at the time of filing?” →