The Court determined that Orth’s counsel violated the golden rule arguments, but opposing party’s substantial rights were not violated. Moreover, the district court’s ruling regarding plaintiff expert’s potential biases did not impose severe limitations on Capanna’s ability to fully cross-examine plaintiff’s expert. Further, the district court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed Orth to supplement expert witness list and the award of attorney fees and costs was within the discretion of the district court. Lastly, Orth lacks standing in challenging the district court’s decision.
Tian, Pengxiang, "Capanna, M.D. v. Orth, 134 Nev. Adv. Op. 108 (Dec. 27, 2018) (en banc)" (2018). Nevada Supreme Court Summaries. 1210.