Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 630 - PHYSICIANS, PHYSICIAN ASSISTANTS, MEDICAL ASSISTANTS, PERFUSIONISTS, ANESTHESIOLOGIST ASSISTANTS AND PRACTITIONERS OF RESPIRATORY CARE
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 630.339 (2026)

Contents of formal charging document; answer; case conference; formal hearing

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 630.339  Contents of formal charging document; answer; case conference; formal hearing.

      1.  If a committee designated by the Board to conduct an investigation of a complaint decides to proceed with disciplinary action, it shall bring charges against the licensee by filing a formal charging document. The formal charging document must include a written statement setting forth the charges alleged and setting forth in concise and plain language each act or omission of the respondent upon which the charges are based. The formal charging document must be prepared with sufficient clarity to ensure that the respondent is able to prepare a defense. The formal charging document must specify any applicable law or regulation that the respondent is alleged to have violated. The formal charging document may be signed by the chair of the investigative committee or the legal counsel for the Board.

      2.  The respondent may file an answer to the formal charging document pursuant to NRS 622A.320. An answer must state in concise and plain language the respondent’s defenses to each charge set forth in the charging document and must admit or deny the averments stated in the charging document. If a party fails to file an answer within the time prescribed, the party shall be deemed to have denied generally the allegations of the formal charging document and the Board or an investigative committee of the Board may proceed pursuant to this section in the same manner as if the answer were timely filed.

      3.  Within 20 days after the filing of an answer or 20 days after the date on which an answer is due, whichever is earlier, the parties shall hold an early case conference at which the parties and a hearing officer appointed by the Board or a member of the Board must preside. At the early case conference, the parties shall in good faith:

      (a) Set the earliest possible hearing date agreeable to the parties and the hearing officer, panel of the Board or the Board, including the estimated duration of the hearing;

      (b) Set dates:

             (1) By which all documents must be exchanged;

             (2) By which all prehearing motions and responses thereto must be filed;

             (3) On which to hold the prehearing conference; and

             (4) For any other foreseeable actions that may be required for the matter;

      (c) Discuss or attempt to resolve all or any portion of the evidentiary or legal issues in the matter;

      (d) Discuss the potential for settlement of the matter on terms agreeable to the parties; and

      (e) Discuss and deliberate any other issues that may facilitate the timely and fair conduct of the matter.

      4.  A formal hearing must be held at the time and date set at the early case conference by:

      (a) The Board;

      (b) A hearing officer;

      (c) A member of the Board designated by the Board or an investigative committee of the Board;

      (d) A panel of members of the Board designated by an investigative committee of the Board or the Board;

      (e) A hearing officer together with not more than one member of the Board designated by an investigative committee of the Board or the Board; or

      (f) A hearing officer together with a panel of members of the Board designated by an investigative committee of the Board or the Board. If the hearing is before a panel, at least one member of the panel must not be a physician.

      (Added to NRS by 1977, 826; A 1983, 306; 1985, 2242; 1987, 202; 1993, 783, 2303; 2009, 2968; 2015, 497; 2025, 1628)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1989–2018 · leading case: Molnar v. State ex rel. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 773 P.2d 726 (Nev. 1989).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Molnar v. State ex rel. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 773 P.2d 726 (Nev. 1989). · cites it 5× “In this case, the Board appointed a hearing officer to take evidence pursuant to NRS 630.339(2). 1 A transcript of the hearing and all exhibits presented at the hearing were reviewed by each board member.”
Chudacoff v. Univ. Med. Ctr., 954 F. Supp. 2d 1065 (D. Nev. 2013). · cites it 4× “Nev.Rev.Stat. § 630.339; Mishler, 191 F.3d at 1005, n.”
Sarfo Vs. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs, 2018 NV 85 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “See NRS 630.339. Here, Dr. Sarfo is alleging a due process violation stemming from an initial complaint, not a formal complaint.”
Sarfo Vs. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs, 2018 NV 85 (Nev. 2018). · cites it 2× “See NRS 630.339. Here, Dr. Sarfo is alleging a due process violation stemming from an initial complaint, not a formal complaint.”
Sarfo v. State, Bd. of Med Exam'rs (Nev. 2018). “The IC has no disciplinary powers and can only file a formal complaint with the Board if it concludes that a complaint from a member of the public has a reasonable basis. NRS 630.311(2). Once a formal complaint has been filed, the adjudicative process begins and the physician is…”
Sarfo v. State, 429 P.3d 650 (Nev. 2018). “The IC has no disciplinary powers and can only file a formal complaint with the Board if it concludes that a complaint from a member of the public has a reasonable basis.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 630.339(2) — 1 case
Molnar v. State ex rel. Bd. of Med. Examiners, 773 P.2d 726 (Nev. 1989). “In this case, the Board appointed a hearing officer to take evidence pursuant to NRS 630.339(2). 1 A transcript of the hearing and all exhibits presented at the hearing were reviewed by each board member.”
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.