Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 7 - ATTORNEYS AND COUNSELORS AT LAW

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.095

Limitation on contingent fees for representation of persons in certain actions against providers of health care

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 7.095  Limitation on contingent fees for representation of persons in certain actions against providers of health care.

      1.  An attorney shall not contract for or collect a fee contingent on the amount of recovery for representing a person seeking damages in connection with an action for injury or death against a provider of health care based upon professional negligence in excess of 35 percent of the amount recovered.

      2.  The limitations set forth in subsection 1 apply to all forms of recovery, including, without limitation, settlement, arbitration and judgment.

      3.  For the purposes of this section, “recovered” means the net sum recovered by the plaintiff after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or settlement of the claim. Costs of medical care incurred by the plaintiff and general and administrative expenses incurred by the office of the attorney are not deductible disbursements or costs.

      4.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Professional negligence” means a negligent act or omission to act by a provider of health care in the rendering of professional services, which act or omission is the proximate cause of a personal injury or wrongful death. The term does not include services that are outside the scope of services for which the provider of health care is licensed or services for which any restriction has been imposed by the applicable regulatory board or health care facility.

      (b) “Provider of health care” means a physician licensed under chapter 630 or 633 of NRS, genetic counselor, dentist, registered nurse, dispensing optician, optometrist, licensed physical therapist, podiatric physician, licensed psychologist, behavioral health and wellness practitioner, chiropractic physician, naprapath, doctor of Oriental medicine, holder of a license or a limited license issued under the provisions of chapter 653 of NRS, medical laboratory director or technician, licensed dietitian or a licensed hospital and its employees.

      (Added to NRS by 2004 initiative petition, Ballot Question No. 3; A 2011, 1510; 2019, 2709; 2023, 1683, 3024; 2025, 674, 1119, 2518)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2022–2024 · leading case: NEVINS, M.D. v. MARTYN C/W 85247/85541/85596
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
NEVINS, M.D. v. MARTYN C/W 85247/85541/85596 (2024) nev · cites it 24× “We also conclude that attorneys may not waive or contract around the statutory limit for attorney fees in NRS 7.095. While we affirm the district court's judgment on the jury verdict and order denying a motion for a new trial, we affirm as modified the district court's…”
Sean K. Claggett & Associates LLC v. Keenan (2022) nvd · cites it 4× “…fees for contingent 22 fee agreements in professional negligence cases. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 7.095 . Plaintiff, 23 however, did not solely allege that the parties structured a contingent fee agreement. Rather, 24 Plaintiff alleges that “[t]he valid contract provided…”
RIVES, M.D. v. FARRIS C/W 81052 (2022) nev · cites it 2× “66 consistent with NRCP 68 and NRS 7.095, or alternatively, as a sanction for Rives's discovery behavior.”
RIVES, M.D. v. FARRIS C/W 81052 (2022) nev “66 consistent with NRCP 68 and NRS 7.095, or alternatively, as a sanction for Rives's discovery behavior.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.095(1) — 1 case
NEVINS, M.D. v. MARTYN C/W 85247/85541/85596 (2024) nev “We also conclude that attorneys may not waive or contract around the statutory limit for attorney fees in NRS 7.095. While we affirm the district court's judgment on the jury verdict and order denying a motion for a new trial, we affirm as modified the district court's…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 7.095(4)(b) — 1 case
NEVINS, M.D. v. MARTYN C/W 85247/85541/85596 (2024) nev “We also conclude that attorneys may not waive or contract around the statutory limit for attorney fees in NRS 7.095. While we affirm the district court's judgment on the jury verdict and order denying a motion for a new trial, we affirm as modified the district court's…”
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.