NRS
49.245 Exceptions. There
is no privilege under
NRS 49.225 or
49.235:
1. For communications relevant to an issue
in proceedings to hospitalize the patient for mental illness, if the doctor in
the course of diagnosis or treatment has determined that the patient is in need
of hospitalization.
2. For communications relevant to any
determination made pursuant to NRS 202.360.
3. As to communications made in the course
of a court-ordered examination of the condition of a patient with respect to
the particular purpose of the examination unless the court orders otherwise.
4. As to written medical or hospital
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.
5. In a prosecution or mandamus proceeding
under chapter 441A of NRS.
6. As to any information communicated to a
physician in an effort unlawfully to procure a dangerous drug or controlled
substance, or unlawfully to procure the administration of any such drug or
substance.
7. As to any written medical or hospital
records which are furnished in accordance with the provisions of NRS 629.061.
8. As to records that are required by chapter 453 of NRS to be maintained.
9. As to reports made to the Department of
Motor Vehicles pursuant to subsection 2 of NRS
483.575 and any statements provided to the Department pursuant to NRS 629.047.
10. If the services of the physician are
sought or obtained to enable or aid a person to commit or plan to commit fraud
or any other unlawful act in violation of any provision of chapter 616A, 616B,
616C, 616D
or 617 of NRS which the person knows or
reasonably should know is fraudulent or otherwise unlawful.
(Added to NRS by 1971,
785; A 1977,
155, 997,
1314;
1981,
589, 1967;
1985,
2012; 1987,
1036; 1989,
300, 302,
425;
1995,
1877; 2002
Special Session, 12; 2015,
1458, 1805)
MARRIAGE AND FAMILY THERAPIST AND CLIENT
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
12
cases (
3 in the last 5 years), 1980–2024 · leading case:
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996).
· cites it 2× “507(c) (all three); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.245 (1993) (all three); Utah Rule Evid.”
Estes v. State, 146 P.3d 1114 (Nev. 2006).
“Estes claims that Ms. Coronelía, Dr. Neighbors, and Dr.”
Esquivel v. State, 617 P.2d 587 (Nev. 1980).
“NRS 49.245(2). Here, the statements were used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, after appellant’s guilty plea, which was the reason for the psychiatric examination, was withdrawn as involuntary.”
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 26× “Mitchell's family and marital therapy records are privileged, and his doctor-patient records, though subject to the patient-litigant exception in NRS 49.245(3), should have been reviewed in camera by the district court and appropriate limitations placed on their use before…”
Humana Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 867 P.2d 1147 (Nev. 1994).
“The proper avenue to proceed is on a motion to compel William Henderson [the patient] to execute a medical consent form, or in the alternative, for an order declaring that Henderson has waived the privilege by filing the law suit pursuant to NRS 49.245(3). The Honorable Cliff…”
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015).
· cites it 13× “Mitchell's family and marital therapy records are privileged, and his doctor-patient records, though subject to the patient-litigant exception in NRS 49.245(3), should have been reviewed in camera by the district court and appropriate limitations placed on their use before…”
Bradley Vs. Dist. Ct. (hudson), 2017 NV 92 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 2× “"), now codified as NRS 49.245(4). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A ea7 6 alleged invalidates the will.”
Bynoe (Michael) Vs. Warden (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 2× “115 (providing hearsay rule does not bar statements made for purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis); see also NRS 49.”
Leavitt v. Siems, 2014 NV 54 (Nev. 2014).
· cites it 2× “" NRS 49.245(3) (emphasis added). As to expert witnesses, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure affirmatively allow only formal depositions of experts.”
Bradley Vs. Dist. Ct. (hudson), 2017 NV 92 (Nev. 2017).
“"), now codified as NRS 49.245(4). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A ea7 6 alleged invalidates the will.”
Layton v. Sunbeam Prods., Inc. (D. Nev. 2022).
“” NRS 49.245. Therefore, any medical records pertaining to Plaintiff 4 ||claimed injuries are relevant and discoverable and Defendants request that the Court compe 3 || Plaintiff to disclose the medical records that she represented were soon to be in her possession.”
Laszloffy v. Garcia (D. Nev. 2024).
“[a]s to communications relevant to an issue of treatment of the client in any proceeding in which the 21 treatment is an element of a claim or defense,” and NRS 49.245(4), which establishes that “[t]here is no privilege under NRS 49.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.245(2) — 1 case
Esquivel v. State, 617 P.2d 587 (Nev. 1980).
“NRS 49.245(2). Here, the statements were used as evidence in a criminal prosecution, after appellant’s guilty plea, which was the reason for the psychiatric examination, was withdrawn as involuntary.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.245(3) — 4 cases
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015).
“Mitchell's family and marital therapy records are privileged, and his doctor-patient records, though subject to the patient-litigant exception in NRS 49.245(3), should have been reviewed in camera by the district court and appropriate limitations placed on their use before…”
Humana Inc. v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Court of the State of Nevada, 867 P.2d 1147 (Nev. 1994).
“The proper avenue to proceed is on a motion to compel William Henderson [the patient] to execute a medical consent form, or in the alternative, for an order declaring that Henderson has waived the privilege by filing the law suit pursuant to NRS 49.245(3). The Honorable Cliff…”
Mitchell, D.O. Vs. Dist. Ct. (bunting), 2015 NV 21 (Nev. 2015).
“Mitchell's family and marital therapy records are privileged, and his doctor-patient records, though subject to the patient-litigant exception in NRS 49.245(3), should have been reviewed in camera by the district court and appropriate limitations placed on their use before…”
Leavitt v. Siems, 2014 NV 54 (Nev. 2014).
“" NRS 49.245(3) (emphasis added). As to expert witnesses, the Nevada Rules of Civil Procedure affirmatively allow only formal depositions of experts.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 49.245(4) — 4 cases
Bradley Vs. Dist. Ct. (hudson), 2017 NV 92 (Nev. 2017).
“"), now codified as NRS 49.245(4). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A ea7 6 alleged invalidates the will.”
Bynoe (Michael) Vs. Warden (Nev. 2021).
“115 (providing hearsay rule does not bar statements made for purpose of medical treatment or diagnosis); see also NRS 49.”
Bradley Vs. Dist. Ct. (hudson), 2017 NV 92 (Nev. 2017).
“"), now codified as NRS 49.245(4). SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (01 1947A ea7 6 alleged invalidates the will.”
Laszloffy v. Garcia (D. Nev. 2024).
“[a]s to communications relevant to an issue of treatment of the client in any proceeding in which the 21 treatment is an element of a claim or defense,” and NRS 49.245(4), which establishes that “[t]here is no privilege under NRS 49.”
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.