Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 49 - PRIVILEGES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.225 (2026)

General rule of privilege

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 49.225  General rule of privilege.  A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications among the patient, the patient’s doctor or persons who are participating in the diagnosis or treatment under the direction of the doctor, including members of the patient’s family.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 785)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Rogers v. State, 255 P.3d 1264 (Nev. 2011). · cites it 8× “NRS 49.225 states the general rule of doctor-patient privilege, as follows: A patient has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications among the patient, the patient’s doctor or persons who are participating in the…”
Cleghorn v. Hess, 853 P.2d 1260 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 2× “" NRS 49.225. Clearly, Cleghorn had no right to prevent the disclosure of the test results to Wackenhut who had instructed Dr.”
Diaz v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of Nevada, 993 P.2d 50 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 2× “209 (psychologist-patient privilege); NRS 49.225 (doctor-patient privilege); NRS 49.”
Ashokan v. State, Dep't of Ins., 856 P.2d 244 (Nev. 1993). “185 (accountant-client); NRS 49.225 (doctor-patient); NRS 49.247 (marriage/family therapist-client); NRS 49.”
Hetter v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 874 P.2d 762 (Nev. 1994). “NRS 49.225 states: General rule of privilege.”
Meador v. State, 711 P.2d 852 (Nev. 1985). “DOCTOR-PATIENT PRIVILEGE Appellant contends that the district court erred in allowing a psychiatrist to testify to his conversations with appellant, citing the doctor-patient privilege contained in NRS 49.225. 2 We conclude that the privilege was inapplicable, however, because…”
State v. Almonte, 644 A.2d 295 (R.I. 1994). “§ 626-1 , Rule 504(a)(3) & (b) (1985); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 49.225 and § 49.215(1) (Michie 1986).”
Potter v. West Side Transp., Inc., 188 F.R.D. 362 (D. Nev. 1999). “There are comparable provisions for doctors and patients (NRS 49.225), which would provide the same protection for a psychiatrist, and for marriage and family therapists (NRS 49.”
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 6× “NRS 49.225 and NRS 49.247 protect as privileged confidential communications between a patient and his doctor and between clients and their marriage and family therapist.”
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015). · cites it 3× “NRS 49.225 and NRS 49.247 protect as privileged confidential communications between a patient and his doctor and between clients and their marriage and family therapist.”
Ward (Joshua) Vs. State (Nev. 2020). “" 2 NRS 49.225 (same as to doctor/patient records); NRS 49.”
Laszloffy v. Garcia (D. Nev. 2024). “245(4), which establishes that “[t]here is no privilege under NRS 49.225 or 49.235 . . . [a]s to written medical or hospital 22 records relevant to an issue of the condition of the patient in any proceeding in which the condition is an element of a claim or defense.”
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.