Keegan Davis

Document Type

Case Summary

Publication Date

6-27-2024

Case Synopsis

NRS 41A dictates Nevada’s statutory scheme for professional negligence, or “medical malpractice” claims. Over the past decade, the Nevada Supreme Court’s professional negligence jurisprudence has maintained a generally textualist approach to NRS 41A’s mechanical workings. That changed four years ago with the Court’s decision in Estate of Curtis v. S. Las Vegas Medical Investors, LLC, 136 Nev. 350, 466 P.3d 1263 (2020) and the creation of a “common knowledge” exception negating the need for medical affidavits under NRS 41A.071. Absent common knowledge, or the statute’s other exceptions found in NRS 41A.100, a professional negligence complaint must be paired with an affidavit by a medical professional in order to overcome a motion to dismiss. In the instant case, the Court reappraised and subsequently overruled the “common knowledge” exception in Curtis due to its deviation from the Nevada Legislature’s intent behind the affidavit requirement. Instead of the opaque Curtis standard delineating professional vs. ordinary negligence, Limprasert refocuses a district court’s analysis to whether the plaintiff is harmed by “a provider of health care rendering services in the course of a professional relationship.” Further, the Court ruled that NRS 41.071’s affidavit requirement can be satisfied “by reference in the complaint and was executed before the complaint was filed.” Finally, because Limprasert fulfilled the affidavit requirement under the Baxter v. Dignity Health standard, the district court erred in dismissing the complaint for nonadherence to NRS 41.071.

Download

Share

COinS