01/02/2018
NEVADA SUPREME COURT ISSUES A SIGNIFICANT RULING FOR PLAINTIFFS IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES.
Durney & Brennan proudly represents the Plaintiff in this tragic medical malpractice case and is delighted to share the news of this important Nevada ruling.
In April of 2012, a young woman presented at Carson Tahoe Hospital to give birth to a full term, healthy baby boy. During her labor and delivery, the baby’s heartbeat dropped dramatically which required immediate medical attention and assistance, however it took well over an hour for the Carson Tahoe medical team to respond to the emergency and by the time the baby was delivered by C-section, he was profoundly disabled and his life expectancy was limited to only about 15 years. On behalf of herself and her son, the young woman sued the doctor and the hospital for medical malpractice, but settled with the doctor before trial. At trial, the hospital pointed its finger at the doctor, blaming the infant’s birth injuries on the negligence of the doctor, but due to several decisions at the trial court level, the jury was not allowed to consider whether or not Carson Tahoe Hospital could be held wholly or partially responsible for the negligence of its chosen doctor. Yesterday, December 28, 2017, the Nevada Supreme Court issued an opinion stating that, hospitals can be held vicariously liable, even under the several liability scheme created by NRS 41A.045 . Additionally, the Supreme Court held that under Schlotfeldt, the question of ostensible agency is a question of fact for the jury, not the district court, to decide and that no one factor is dispositive. In sum, under the facts of this case, it should have been the jury, and not the district court judge, who was to have decided whether or not a hospital can be held responsible for the negligence of one of its doctors.
The Nevada Supreme Court further ruled that in a medical malpractice action, NRS 42.021 is preempted by federal law and that evidence of Medicare / Medicaid cannot be introduced at trial.
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case for another jury to decide whether or not the doctor was an ostensible agent of the hospital and specifically precluded defense counsel from being able to introduce or discuss federal collateral source evidence as such evidence is now per se inadmissible in Nevada.
McCrosky v. Carson Tahoe Regional Medical Center - 133 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 115
#}