The court held that future medical expenses are a category of damages to which NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C)’s computation requirement applies, and that a plaintiff is not absolved of complying with NRCP 16.1(a)(1)(C) simply because the plaintiff’s treating physician has indicated in medical records that future medical care is necessary.
Hart, Andrew, "Pizarro-Ortega v. Cervantes-Lopez, 133 Nev. Adv. Op. 37 (June 22, 2017)" (2017). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1052.