Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 89 - PROFESSIONAL ENTITIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 89.060 (2026)

Professional relationship preserved

✓ laws through the 2025 session (checked Sept. 2026)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 89.060  Professional relationship preserved.  The provisions of this chapter relating to professional entities do not modify any law applicable to the relationship between a person furnishing professional service and a person receiving such service, including liability arising out of such professional service, but nothing contained in this section renders:

      1.  A person personally liable in tort for any act in which the person has not personally participated.

      2.  A director, officer or employee of a professional entity liable in contract for any contract which the director, officer or employee signs on behalf of a professional entity within the limits of his or her actual authority.

      (Added to NRS by 1963, 866; A 1969, 521; 2003, 3160; 2007, 2435)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2024 · leading case: Fierle v. Perez, 219 P.3d 906 (Nev. 2009).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Fierle v. Perez, 219 P.3d 906 (Nev. 2009). · cites it 6× “While we acknowledge that the statutory definition for medical malpractice refers to a physician and not to a professional medical corporation, NRS 89.060 and 89.220 make clear that when dealing with a medical malpractice claim against professional entities and professional…”
Grayson v. Jones, 710 P.2d 76 (Nev. 1985). · cites it 2× “See NRS 89.060. 2 Thus, it is clear *751 that, as a matter of law, respondents cannot be held individually liable for the alleged tortious acts of Goodheart unless they personally participated in those acts.”
Nevins v. Martyn c/w 85247/85541/85596, 557 P.3d 965 (Nev. 2024). “See NRS 89.060 (stating that professional entities do not modify the liability of a person involved in a professional service).”
Zhang v. Barnes, No. 67219 (Nev. Sept. 12, 2016). “Under NRS 89.060 and NRS 89.220, as interpreted in Fierle, a physician's professional corporation, equally with the physician himself, can be a "provider of healthcare" for purposes of the cap NRS 41A.”
Nev. Rev. Stat. § 89.060(1): 1 case
Fierle v. Perez, 219 P.3d 906 (Nev. 2009). “While we acknowledge that the statutory definition for medical malpractice refers to a physician and not to a professional medical corporation, NRS 89.060 and 89.220 make clear that when dealing with a medical malpractice claim against professional entities and professional…”
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.