Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 41A - ACTIONS FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.071 (2026)

Dismissal of action filed without affidavit of medical expert

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 41A.071  Dismissal of action filed without affidavit of medical expert.  If an action for professional negligence is filed in the district court, the district court shall dismiss the action, without prejudice, if the action is filed without an affidavit that:

      1.  Supports the allegations contained in the action;

      2.  Is submitted by a medical expert who practices or has practiced in an area that is substantially similar to the type of practice engaged in at the time of the alleged professional negligence;

      3.  Identifies by name, or describes by conduct, each provider of health care who is alleged to be negligent; and

      4.  Sets forth factually a specific act or acts of alleged negligence separately as to each defendant in simple, concise and direct terms.

      (Added to NRS by 2002 Special Session, 8; A 2015, 2527)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 99 cases (44 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: Szydel v. Markman, 117 P.3d 200 (Nev. 2005).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Szydel v. Markman, 117 P.3d 200 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 65× “100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.071. We conclude that the expert affidavit requirement does not apply when the malpractice action is based solely on the res ipsa loquitur doctrine.”
Fierle v. Perez, 219 P.3d 906 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 90× “This appeal involves mainly issues of first impression regarding the applicability of NRS 41A.071 to professional medical corporations in medical malpractice actions and nurses and nurse practitioners in professional negligence actions; and whether medical malpractice and…”
Washoe Med. Ctr. v. Second Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Washoe, 148 P.3d 790 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 40× “: In this appeal, we address whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may amend her complaint, under NRCP 15(a), to comply with NRS 41A.071, which requires that complaints for medical malpractice be accompanied by a medical expert affidavit.”
Engelson v. Dignity Health, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58 (Nev. 2023). · cites it 132× “In doing so, we take this opportunity to clarify that an affidavit of merit need not opine as to the element of causation to support a professional negligence-based wrongful death claim under NRS 41A.071. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Borger v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of State of Nevada, 102 P.3d 600 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 25× “Because the petition involves important issues of law concerning the expert witness certification requirements of recently enacted NRS 41A.071, issues that merit clarification to further judicial economy in this case and in general, we grant this petition for writ relief.”
Washoe Med. Ctr. v. Dist. Ct., 148 P.3d 790 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 44× “In this appeal, we address whether a plaintiff in a medical malpractice action may amend her complaint, under NRCP 15(a), to comply with NRS 41A.071, which requires that complaints for medical malpractice be accompanied by a medical expert affidavit.”
Limprasert v. Pam Specialty Hosp. of Las Vegas LLC, 550 P.3d 825 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 21× “First, we clarify the standard for distinguishing professional negligence claims, which require a supporting affidavit from a medical expert under NRS 41A.071, from ordinary negligence claims.”
Borger v. Dist. Ct., 102 P.3d 600 (Nev. 2004). · cites it 26× “Because the petition involves important issues of law concerning the expert witness certification requirements of recently enacted NRS 41A.071, issues that merit clarification to further judicial economy in this case and in general, we grant this petition for writ relief.”
MountainView Hosp., Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada ex rel. Cnty. of Clark, 273 P.3d 861 (Nev. 2012). · cites it 14× “We conclude that the absence of a properly executed jurat does not render a medical expert’s written statement insufficient to meet the affidavit requirement of NRS 41A.071. Because a jurat is merely evidence that the medical expert swore under oath to the veracity of his or her…”
Egan v. Chambers, 299 P.3d 364 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 18× “: In this opinion, we reexamine whether NRS 41A.071’s affidavit-of-merit requirement applies to claims for professional negligence.”
Buckwalter v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court, 234 P.3d 920 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 8× “045 can satisfy the affidavit requirement stated in NRS 41A.071. We agree with the district court that it can and therefore deny writ relief.”
De Becker v. Uhs of Del., Inc., 555 P.3d 1192 (Nev. 2024). · cites it 23× “Specifically, we revisit the requirements for expert affidavits under NRS 41A.071 and the dismissal of complaints with deficient expert affidavits.”
Show all 99 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.071(1) — 7 cases
Engelson v. Dignity Health, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58 (Nev. 2023). “In doing so, we take this opportunity to clarify that an affidavit of merit need not opine as to the element of causation to support a professional negligence-based wrongful death claim under NRS 41A.071. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Limprasert v. Pam Specialty Hosp. of Las Vegas LLC, 550 P.3d 825 (Nev. 2024). “First, we clarify the standard for distinguishing professional negligence claims, which require a supporting affidavit from a medical expert under NRS 41A.071, from ordinary negligence claims.”
Ellis v. Mivev (D. Nev. 2020).
Martell v. Kahbro (D. Nev. 2022).
Soong, M.D. Vs. Dist. Ct. (Manukyan) (Nev. 2021).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.071(2) — 8 cases
Engelson v. Dignity Health, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58 (Nev. 2023). “In doing so, we take this opportunity to clarify that an affidavit of merit need not opine as to the element of causation to support a professional negligence-based wrongful death claim under NRS 41A.071. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
Szymborski Vs. Spring Mtn. Treatment Ctr., 2017 NV 80 (Nev. 2017).
Nevarez, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Doss) (Nev. 2022).
Flaviano, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (Neason) (Nev. 2022).
Szymborski Vs. Spring Mtn. Treatment Ctr., 2017 NV 80 (Nev. 2017).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.071(3) — 3 cases
Engelson v. Dignity Health, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58 (Nev. 2023). “In doing so, we take this opportunity to clarify that an affidavit of merit need not opine as to the element of causation to support a professional negligence-based wrongful death claim under NRS 41A.071. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
De Becker v. Uhs of Del., Inc., 555 P.3d 1192 (Nev. 2024). “Specifically, we revisit the requirements for expert affidavits under NRS 41A.071 and the dismissal of complaints with deficient expert affidavits.”
Schomer v. Gonzalez - Individually (D. Nev. 2025).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.071(4) — 3 cases
Engelson v. Dignity Health, 139 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 58 (Nev. 2023). “In doing so, we take this opportunity to clarify that an affidavit of merit need not opine as to the element of causation to support a professional negligence-based wrongful death claim under NRS 41A.071. Therefore, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.”
De Becker v. Uhs of Del., Inc., 555 P.3d 1192 (Nev. 2024). “Specifically, we revisit the requirements for expert affidavits under NRS 41A.071 and the dismissal of complaints with deficient expert affidavits.”
Zanon v. Beauty by Design (D. Nev. 2021).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.