NRS
49.215 Definitions. As
used in
NRS 49.215 to
49.245, inclusive:
1. A communication is “confidential” if it
is not intended to be disclosed to third persons other than:
(a) Those present to further the interest of the
patient in the consultation, examination or interview;
(b) Persons reasonably necessary for the
transmission of the communication; or
(c) Persons who are participating in the
diagnosis and treatment under the direction of the doctor, including members of
the patient’s family.
2. “Doctor” means a person licensed to
practice medicine, genetic counseling, dentistry or osteopathic medicine,
chiropractic or naprapathy in any state or nation, or a person who is
reasonably believed by the patient to be so licensed, and in addition includes
a person employed by a public or private agency as a psychiatric social worker,
or someone under his or her guidance, direction or control, while engaged in
the examination, diagnosis or treatment of a patient for a mental condition.
3. “Patient” means a person who consults
or is examined or interviewed by a doctor for purposes of diagnosis or
treatment.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
785; A 1975,
1632; 1977,
956; 1995,
2498; 2021,
533; 2023,
1686; 2025,
1121)
Notes of Decisions
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
· cites it 4× “§ 27-504 (1995); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.215 (1993); N. H. Rule Evid.”
Cleghorn v. Hess, 853 P.2d 1260 (Nev. 1993).
· cites it 4× “" NRS 49.215(3). The word patient has similarly been defined as "a person seeking medical services for examination or treatment.”
Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011).
· cites it 10× “The district court denied the motion by written order in which it concluded “that an EMT paramedic does not fall within the Doctor-Patient Privilege” because the definition of “doctor” in NRS 49.215 “does not include a paramedic” and, further, that there was no “evidence to…”
Meador v. State, 711 P.2d 852 (Nev. 1985).
“NRS 49.215 defines a confidential communication as one “not intended to be disclosed to third persons.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.215(2) — 1 case
Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011).
“The district court denied the motion by written order in which it concluded “that an EMT paramedic does not fall within the Doctor-Patient Privilege” because the definition of “doctor” in NRS 49.215 “does not include a paramedic” and, further, that there was no “evidence to…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.215(3) — 2 cases
Cleghorn v. Hess, 853 P.2d 1260 (Nev. 1993).
“" NRS 49.215(3). The word patient has similarly been defined as "a person seeking medical services for examination or treatment.”
Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011).
“The district court denied the motion by written order in which it concluded “that an EMT paramedic does not fall within the Doctor-Patient Privilege” because the definition of “doctor” in NRS 49.215 “does not include a paramedic” and, further, that there was no “evidence to…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.215(l)(a) — 1 case
Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011).
“The district court denied the motion by written order in which it concluded “that an EMT paramedic does not fall within the Doctor-Patient Privilege” because the definition of “doctor” in NRS 49.215 “does not include a paramedic” and, further, that there was no “evidence to…”
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.