NRS
41A.097 Limitation of actions; tolling of limitation.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 4, an action for injury or death against a provider of health care
may not be commenced more than 4 years after the date of injury or 2 years
after the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should
have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first, for:
(a) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring before October 1, 2002, based upon alleged professional negligence of
the provider of health care;
(b) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring before October 1, 2002, from professional services rendered without
consent; or
(c) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring before October 1, 2002, from error or omission in practice by the
provider of health care.
2. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 4, an action for injury or death against a provider of health care
may not be commenced more than 3 years after the date of injury or 1 year after
the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have
discovered the injury, whichever occurs first, for:
(a) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring on or after October 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2023, based upon
alleged professional negligence of the provider of health care;
(b) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring on or after October 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2023, from
professional services rendered without consent; or
(c) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring on or after October 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2023, from error or
omission in practice by the provider of health care.
3. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 4, an action for injury or death against a provider of health care
may not be commenced more than 3 years after the date of injury or 2 years
after the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should
have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first, for:
(a) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring on or after October 1, 2023, based upon alleged professional
negligence of the provider of health care;
(b) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring on or after October 1, 2023, from professional services rendered
without consent; or
(c) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person
occurring on or after October 1, 2023, from error or omission in practice by
the provider of health care.
4. This time limitation is tolled for any
period during which the provider of health care has concealed any act, error or
omission upon which the action is based and which is known or through the use
of reasonable diligence should have been known to the provider of health care.
5. For the purposes of this section, the
parent, guardian or legal custodian of any minor child is responsible for
exercising reasonable judgment in determining whether to prosecute any cause of
action limited by subsection 1, 2 or 3. If the parent, guardian or custodian
fails to commence an action on behalf of that child within the prescribed
period of limitations, the child may not bring an action based on the same
alleged injury against any provider of health care upon the removal of the
child’s disability, except that in the case of:
(a) Brain damage or birth defect, the period of
limitation is extended until the child attains 10 years of age.
(b) Sterility, the period of limitation is
extended until 2 years after the child discovers the injury.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
366; A 1975,
407; 1977,
857, 954,
1082;
1985,
2011; 1989,
424; 1991,
1131; 1993,
2224; 1995,
2350; 1999,
5; 2001,
1107; 2002
Special Session, 8; 2004 initiative petition, Ballot Question No. 3; 2023,
3023)
Notes of Decisions
Winn v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center (2012)
nev · cites it 13×
“: Nevada’s statute of limitations governing medical malpractice actions is NRS 41A.097. Subsection 2 of that statute provides that such actions must be filed within three years of the injury date and within one year of the injury’s discovery.”
Engelson v. Dignity Health (2023)
nevapp · cites it 35×
“Recent amendments to NRS 41A.097 extended the statute of limitations for professional negligence claims to two years after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury, but only for claims arising on or after October 1, 2023.”
Pack v. LATOURETTE (2012)
nev · cites it 4×
“LaTourette moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that it was time-barred by NRS 41A.097, Nevada’s statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims.”
Gilloon v. Humana, Inc. (1984)
nev · cites it 9×
“: This is an action for the wrongful death of Winifred Gilloon, in which the trial court granted summary judgment 1 on the *519 grounds that the applicable statute of limitations, NRS 41A.097, 2 had run before appellant filed his complaint.”
Monroe v. Columbia Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center (2007)
nev · cites it 5×
“20 NRS 41A.097(1) provides that the statute of limitations for an action alleging injury caused by a health-care provider before October 1, 2002, is four years from the date of injury, or two years from the date the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury,…”
Massey v. Litton (1983)
nev · cites it 4×
“THE MEANING OF INJURY AS USED IN THE STATUTORY DISCOVERY RULE We first must decide what “injury” means as used in the statutory discovery rule for malpractice, NRS 41A.097(1). 3 *726 Respondent argues that it means physical damage only: a plaintiff actually or constructively…”
Saylor v. Arcotta (2010)
nev · cites it 4×
“1 Respondents moved the district court for summary judgment, arguing that appellants’ claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions, NRS 41A.097. The district court agreed that appellants’ claims against respondents were time-barred,…”
Greene v. Wyeth (2004)
nvd · cites it 2×
“NRS 41A.097(1). Accordingly, the parties dispute whether both the four and the two-year statute of limitations have run.”
Pope v. Gray (1988)
nev · cites it 11×
“The trial *360 judge held that the action was timebarred by the applicable statute of limitations, NRS 41A.097. We disagree, reverse and remand.”
Thomas v. Hardwick (2010)
nev · cites it 2×
“Dismissal of Brandi Thomas's claims The district court dismissed the amended complaint naming Brandi Thomas as an additional party plaintiff based on the statute of limitations in NRS 41A.097(4). On appeal, Brandi Thomas seeks to challenge the dismissal on constitutional and…”
Fierle v. Perez (2009)
nev · cites it 2×
“NRS 41A.097. The majority holds that the affidavit requirement in NRS 41A.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(1) — 8 cases
Massey v. Litton (1983)
nev
“THE MEANING OF INJURY AS USED IN THE STATUTORY DISCOVERY RULE We first must decide what “injury” means as used in the statutory discovery rule for malpractice, NRS 41A.097(1). 3 *726 Respondent argues that it means physical damage only: a plaintiff actually or constructively…”
Greene v. Wyeth (2004)
nvd
“NRS 41A.097(1). Accordingly, the parties dispute whether both the four and the two-year statute of limitations have run.”
Monroe v. Columbia Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center (2007)
nev
“20 NRS 41A.097(1) provides that the statute of limitations for an action alleging injury caused by a health-care provider before October 1, 2002, is four years from the date of injury, or two years from the date the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury,…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(2) — 38 cases
Engelson v. Dignity Health (2023)
nevapp
“Recent amendments to NRS 41A.097 extended the statute of limitations for professional negligence claims to two years after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury, but only for claims arising on or after October 1, 2023.”
Winn v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center (2012)
nev
“: Nevada’s statute of limitations governing medical malpractice actions is NRS 41A.097. Subsection 2 of that statute provides that such actions must be filed within three years of the injury date and within one year of the injury’s discovery.”
Saylor v. Arcotta (2010)
nev
“1 Respondents moved the district court for summary judgment, arguing that appellants’ claims were time-barred by the statute of limitations for medical malpractice actions, NRS 41A.097. The district court agreed that appellants’ claims against respondents were time-barred,…”
Pack v. LATOURETTE (2012)
nev
“LaTourette moved to dismiss the third-party complaint, arguing that it was time-barred by NRS 41A.097, Nevada’s statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(2)(a) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(2)(b) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(2)(c) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(3) — 6 cases
Winn v. Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center (2012)
nev
“: Nevada’s statute of limitations governing medical malpractice actions is NRS 41A.097. Subsection 2 of that statute provides that such actions must be filed within three years of the injury date and within one year of the injury’s discovery.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(4) — 7 cases
Monroe v. Columbia Sunrise Hospital & Medical Center (2007)
nev
“20 NRS 41A.097(1) provides that the statute of limitations for an action alleging injury caused by a health-care provider before October 1, 2002, is four years from the date of injury, or two years from the date the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury,…”
Thomas v. Hardwick (2010)
nev
“Dismissal of Brandi Thomas's claims The district court dismissed the amended complaint naming Brandi Thomas as an additional party plaintiff based on the statute of limitations in NRS 41A.097(4). On appeal, Brandi Thomas seeks to challenge the dismissal on constitutional and…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(4)(a) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(5) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.097(8) — 1 case
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.