Add to ORKGThe Court reexamined whether NRS 41A.071\u27s affidavit-of-merit requirement applies to claims for professional negligence, which it had answered only a few years ago in Fierle v. Perez. The Court held that the plain and unambiguous language of NRS 41A.071 indicates that professional negligence actions are not subject to its affidavit-of-merit requirement, which applies only to medical or dental malpractice actions
Most courts hold that where a defendant employer admits that it is vicariously liable for its employ...
The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the burden of proof for an NRS 617.457 occupational heart disease...
Appellant Szydel brought a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Markman after he left a surgical ne...
NRS 41A.071 provides that any action for professional negligence shall be dismissed if it is filed w...
The Court determined that an expert affidavit attached to a medical malpractice complaint, which oth...
In an effort to combat the rise in potentially frivolous lawsuits against professionals, including p...
The Court held that a claim of injury suffered during medical treatment may not be dismissed for lac...
The Court determined (1) when stating a claim for a negligence action in which medical monitoring is...
The Court applied the common knowledge exception to the expert affidavit requirement for an ordinary...
Under NRS 41A.071, a plaintiff’s malpractice claim must be dismissed if the claim is not accompanied...
Section 9-11-9.1 of the Georgia Code might be the state\u27s most notorious procedural statute. Enac...
The Court determined that allegations raising the scope of informed consent rather than the absence ...
The Court adopted an exception to the common law litigation privilege for legal malpractice and prof...
Appeal from an action that was dismissed on statute of limitation grounds with prejudice. The Court ...
NRS 7.085 allows a district court to make an attorney personally liable for the attorney fees and co...
Most courts hold that where a defendant employer admits that it is vicariously liable for its employ...
The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the burden of proof for an NRS 617.457 occupational heart disease...
Appellant Szydel brought a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Markman after he left a surgical ne...
NRS 41A.071 provides that any action for professional negligence shall be dismissed if it is filed w...
The Court determined that an expert affidavit attached to a medical malpractice complaint, which oth...
In an effort to combat the rise in potentially frivolous lawsuits against professionals, including p...
The Court held that a claim of injury suffered during medical treatment may not be dismissed for lac...
The Court determined (1) when stating a claim for a negligence action in which medical monitoring is...
The Court applied the common knowledge exception to the expert affidavit requirement for an ordinary...
Under NRS 41A.071, a plaintiff’s malpractice claim must be dismissed if the claim is not accompanied...
Section 9-11-9.1 of the Georgia Code might be the state\u27s most notorious procedural statute. Enac...
The Court determined that allegations raising the scope of informed consent rather than the absence ...
The Court adopted an exception to the common law litigation privilege for legal malpractice and prof...
Appeal from an action that was dismissed on statute of limitation grounds with prejudice. The Court ...
NRS 7.085 allows a district court to make an attorney personally liable for the attorney fees and co...
Most courts hold that where a defendant employer admits that it is vicariously liable for its employ...
The Nevada Supreme Court addressed the burden of proof for an NRS 617.457 occupational heart disease...
Appellant Szydel brought a medical malpractice claim against Dr. Markman after he left a surgical ne...