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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100

Required evidence; exceptions; rebuttable presumption of negligence

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 41A.100  Required evidence; exceptions; rebuttable presumption of negligence.

      1.  Liability for personal injury or death is not imposed upon any provider of health care based on alleged negligence in the performance of that care unless evidence consisting of expert medical testimony, material from recognized medical texts or treatises or the regulations of the licensed medical facility wherein the alleged negligence occurred is presented to demonstrate the alleged deviation from the accepted standard of care in the specific circumstances of the case and to prove causation of the alleged personal injury or death, except that such evidence is not required and a rebuttable presumption that the personal injury or death was caused by negligence arises where evidence is presented that the provider of health care caused the personal injury or death occurred in any one or more of the following circumstances:

      (a) A foreign substance other than medication or a prosthetic device was unintentionally left within the body of a patient following surgery;

      (b) An explosion or fire originating in a substance used in treatment occurred in the course of treatment;

      (c) An unintended burn caused by heat, radiation or chemicals was suffered in the course of medical care;

      (d) An injury was suffered during the course of treatment to a part of the body not directly involved in the treatment or proximate thereto; or

      (e) A surgical procedure was performed on the wrong patient or the wrong organ, limb or part of a patient’s body.

      2.  Expert medical testimony provided pursuant to subsection 1 may only be given by a provider of health care 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 negligence.

      3.  The rebuttable presumption pursuant to subsection 1 does not apply in an action in which a plaintiff submits an affidavit pursuant to NRS 41A.071, or otherwise designates an expert witness to establish that the specific provider of health care deviated from the accepted standard of care.

      4.  Nothing in this section shall be construed to preclude any party to the suit from designating and presenting expert testimony as to the legal or proximate cause of any alleged personal injury or death.

      (Added to NRS by 1975, 406; A 1977, 955; 1985, 1754; 1997, 1219; 1999, 5; 2002 Special Session, 9; 2015, 2528)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 53 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1979–2025 · leading case: Szydel v. Markman
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev · cites it 40× “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
JARAMILLO VS. RAMOS, M.D. (2020) nev · cites it 58× “: Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence in certain medical malpractice actions.”
MONTANEZ v. SPARKS FAMILY HOSP., INC. (2021) nev · cites it 52× “NRS 41A.100, however, exempts the plaintiff from providing the affidavit in certain circumstances, including when "Ea] foreign substance other than medication or a prosthetic device was unintentionally left within the body of a patient following surgery.”
Fierle v. Perez (2009) nev · cites it 26× “071 for claims of medical malpractice and revised the res ipsa loquitur exception in NRS 41A.100. In 2004, Nevada's voters approved an initiative petition that added protections for "professional negligence" for "provider[s] of health care.”
CUMMINGS VS. BARBER, M.D. (2020) nev · cites it 52× “We conclude that although NRS 41A.100(1) generally applies only to objects left in the patient's body during the at-issue surgery, it can also apply in cases where, as here, the sole purpose of the at- issue surgery is to remove medical devices and related hardware implanted…”
LIMPRASERT v. PAM SPECIALTY HOSP. OF LAS VEGAS LLC (2024) nev · cites it 13× “Unlike Michigan, Nevada has by statute,, NRS 41A.100, and caselaw, Peck v. Zipf, 133 Nev.”
Cook v. SUNRISE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, LLC (2008) nev · cites it 4× “[12] The district court gave the jury a "mere happening" instruction that primarily tracked language found in Gunlock and also gave a res ipsa loquitur instruction based on NRS 41A.100(1)(d). [13] This court held that the portion of the "mere happening" instruction stating that…”
Borger v. Dist. Ct. (2004) nev · cites it 5× “069 (repealed 2002); NRS 41A.100 (repealed 2002). [10] See NRS 41A.”
Engelson v. Dignity Health (2023) nevapp · cites it 12× “The language of NRS 41A.100, the res ipsa loquitur statute, further supports our reading of NRS 41A.”
Beattie v. Thomas (1983) nev · cites it 2× “Moreover, he fails to direct us to sufficient expert testimony in the record to support an informed consent instruction under the rule. For these reasons, the district court did not err in refusing appellant’s informed consent instruction.”
Carver v. El-Sabawi (2005) nev · cites it 3× “[2] NRS 41A.100 codifies and supplies the res ipsa loquitur theory of negligence in medical malpractice cases where it is factually applicable.”
Staccato v. Valley Hospital (2007) nev · cites it 2× “[7] NRS 41A.100; see also Jain v. McFarland, 109 Nev.”
Show all 53 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(1) — 27 cases
JARAMILLO VS. RAMOS, M.D. (2020) nev “: Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence in certain medical malpractice actions.”
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
CUMMINGS VS. BARBER, M.D. (2020) nev “We conclude that although NRS 41A.100(1) generally applies only to objects left in the patient's body during the at-issue surgery, it can also apply in cases where, as here, the sole purpose of the at- issue surgery is to remove medical devices and related hardware implanted…”
LIMPRASERT v. PAM SPECIALTY HOSP. OF LAS VEGAS LLC (2024) nev “Unlike Michigan, Nevada has by statute,, NRS 41A.100, and caselaw, Peck v. Zipf, 133 Nev.”
Fierle v. Perez (2009) nev “071 for claims of medical malpractice and revised the res ipsa loquitur exception in NRS 41A.100. In 2004, Nevada's voters approved an initiative petition that added protections for "professional negligence" for "provider[s] of health care.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(1)(a) — 12 cases
MONTANEZ v. SPARKS FAMILY HOSP., INC. (2021) nev “NRS 41A.100, however, exempts the plaintiff from providing the affidavit in certain circumstances, including when "Ea] foreign substance other than medication or a prosthetic device was unintentionally left within the body of a patient following surgery.”
CUMMINGS VS. BARBER, M.D. (2020) nev “We conclude that although NRS 41A.100(1) generally applies only to objects left in the patient's body during the at-issue surgery, it can also apply in cases where, as here, the sole purpose of the at- issue surgery is to remove medical devices and related hardware implanted…”
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
JARAMILLO VS. RAMOS, M.D. (2020) nev “: Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, creates a rebuttable presumption of negligence in certain medical malpractice actions.”
LIMPRASERT v. PAM SPECIALTY HOSP. OF LAS VEGAS LLC (2024) nev “Unlike Michigan, Nevada has by statute,, NRS 41A.100, and caselaw, Peck v. Zipf, 133 Nev.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(1)(c) — 3 cases
Fierle v. Perez (2009) nev “071 for claims of medical malpractice and revised the res ipsa loquitur exception in NRS 41A.100. In 2004, Nevada's voters approved an initiative petition that added protections for "professional negligence" for "provider[s] of health care.”
NEVINS, M.D. v. MARTYN C/W 85247/85541/85596 (2024) nev
Gardner v. Naphcare, Inc. (2024) nvd
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(1)(d) — 12 cases
Cook v. SUNRISE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, LLC (2008) nev “[12] The district court gave the jury a "mere happening" instruction that primarily tracked language found in Gunlock and also gave a res ipsa loquitur instruction based on NRS 41A.100(1)(d). [13] This court held that the portion of the "mere happening" instruction stating that…”
Carver v. El-Sabawi (2005) nev “[2] NRS 41A.100 codifies and supplies the res ipsa loquitur theory of negligence in medical malpractice cases where it is factually applicable.”
Dolorfino v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev. (2018) nev
DOLORFINO VS. UNIV. MED. CTR. OF S. NEVADA (2018) nev
DOLORFINO VS. UNIV. MED. CTR. OF S. NEVADA (2018) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(1)(e) — 4 cases
Dolorfino v. Univ. Med. Ctr. of S. Nev. (2018) nev
Banks Ex Rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp. (2004) nev
DOLORFINO VS. UNIV. MED. CTR. OF S. NEVADA (2018) nev
DOLORFINO VS. UNIV. MED. CTR. OF S. NEVADA (2018) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(2) — 2 cases
Borger v. Dist. Ct. (2004) nev “069 (repealed 2002); NRS 41A.100 (repealed 2002). [10] See NRS 41A.”
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(3) — 4 cases
Engelson v. Dignity Health (2023) nevapp “The language of NRS 41A.100, the res ipsa loquitur statute, further supports our reading of NRS 41A.”
Fierle v. Perez (2009) nev “071 for claims of medical malpractice and revised the res ipsa loquitur exception in NRS 41A.100. In 2004, Nevada's voters approved an initiative petition that added protections for "professional negligence" for "provider[s] of health care.”
NEVINS, M.D. v. MARTYN C/W 85247/85541/85596 (2024) nev
Gardner v. Naphcare, Inc. (2024) nvd
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(a) — 1 case
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(d) — 1 case
Bynum v. City of Las Vegas (2021) nvd
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(e) — 1 case
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(l) — 1 case
Taylor v. Brill, M.D. (2024) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(l)(a) — 4 cases
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
Fierle v. Perez (2009) nev “071 for claims of medical malpractice and revised the res ipsa loquitur exception in NRS 41A.100. In 2004, Nevada's voters approved an initiative petition that added protections for "professional negligence" for "provider[s] of health care.”
Kinford v. Bannister (2012) nvd
Banks Ex Rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp. (2004) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(l)(c) — 1 case
Fierle v. Perez (2009) nev “071 for claims of medical malpractice and revised the res ipsa loquitur exception in NRS 41A.100. In 2004, Nevada's voters approved an initiative petition that added protections for "professional negligence" for "provider[s] of health care.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(l)(d) — 3 cases
Cook v. SUNRISE HOSPITAL & MEDICAL CENTER, LLC (2008) nev “[12] The district court gave the jury a "mere happening" instruction that primarily tracked language found in Gunlock and also gave a res ipsa loquitur instruction based on NRS 41A.100(1)(d). [13] This court held that the portion of the "mere happening" instruction stating that…”
Johnson v. Egtedar (1996) nev
Banks Ex Rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp. (2004) nev
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 41A.100(l)(e) — 3 cases
Szydel v. Markman (2005) nev “: In this appeal, we consider whether a medical malpractice action filed under Nevada's res ipsa loquitur statute, NRS 41A.100, which does not require expert testimony at trial, must include a medical expert affidavit, as mandated by NRS 41A.”
Born v. Eisenman (1998) nev
Banks Ex Rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp. (2004) nev
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.