by Brian Anderson, Holland & Hart LLP

In a unanimous decision on Friday, October 1, 2015, the Nevada Supreme Court (the Court) upheld as constitutional the state’s $350,000 statutory limitations on plaintiffs’ recovery of noneconomic damages in a medical malpractice or professional negligence suit.

In Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 80 (Nev. Oct. 1, 2015), after the death of Charles Thomas Cornell, Sherry Cornell (individually, and as administrator of Mr. Cornell’s estate) filed a complaint against numerous defendants, including petitioner Stephen Tam, M.D., alleging medical malpractice. Dr. Tam filed a motion requesting in part that the Eighth Judicial District Court (district court) confirm that the Plaintiff’s noneconomic damages be capped pursuant to NRS 41A.035, which limits to $350,000 the recovery of a plaintiff’s noneconomic damages in a healthcare provider’s professional negligence action. The district court denied the motion, concluding that: (1) NRS 41A.035 is unconstitutional, as it violates a plaintiff’s constitutional right to trial by jury;(2) the statutory cap does not apply to the case as a whole, but a separate cap applies to each plaintiff for each of the defendants; and (3) the statutory cap does not apply to medical malpractice claims. Dr. Tam challenged the district court’s order, filing a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the district court to vacate its order. The Court granted the petition in its entirety, holding that the district court erred in: (1) finding the statute unconstitutional; (2) finding the statutory cap applies per plaintiff and per defendant; and (3) finding the statute only applies to professional negligence and not to medical malpractice.

---

For questions regarding this update, please contact:
Brian G. Anderson
Holland & Hart, 9555 Hillwood Drive, 2nd Floor
Las Vegas, NV 89134
email: bganderson@hollandhart.com, phone: 702-669-4600

This publication is designed to provide general information on pertinent legal topics. The statements made are provided for educational purposes only. They do not constitute legal or financial advice nor do they necessarily reflect the views of Holland & Hart LLP or any of its attorneys other than the author. This publication is not intended to create an attorney-client relationship between you and Holland & Hart LLP. Substantive changes in the law subsequent to the date of this publication might affect the analysis or commentary. Similarly, the analysis may differ depending on the jurisdiction or circumstances. If you have specific questions as to the application of the law to your activities, you should seek the advice of your legal counsel.