NRS 41A.097 Actions for Professional Negligence

Statutory Text click to expand

NRS 41A.097Limitation of actions; tolling of limitation.

      1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, an action for injury or death against a provider of health care may not be commenced more than 4 years after the date of injury or 2 years after the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first, for:

      (a) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring before October 1, 2002, based upon alleged professional negligence of the provider of health care;

      (b) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring before October 1, 2002, from professional services rendered without consent; or

      (c) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring before October 1, 2002, from error or omission in practice by the provider of health care.

      2.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, an action for injury or death against a provider of health care may not be commenced more than 3 years after the date of injury or 1 year after the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first, for:

      (a) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring on or after October 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2023, based upon alleged professional negligence of the provider of health care;

      (b) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring on or after October 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2023, from professional services rendered without consent; or

      (c) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring on or after October 1, 2002 and before October 1, 2023, from error or omission in practice by the provider of health care.

      3.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 4, an action for injury or death against a provider of health care may not be commenced more than 3 years after the date of injury or 2 years after the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first, for:

      (a) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring on or after October 1, 2023, based upon alleged professional negligence of the provider of health care;

      (b) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring on or after October 1, 2023, from professional services rendered without consent; or

      (c) Injury to or the wrongful death of a person occurring on or after October 1, 2023, from error or omission in practice by the provider of health care.

      4.  This time limitation is tolled for any period during which the provider of health care has concealed any act, error or omission upon which the action is based and which is known or through the use of reasonable diligence should have been known to the provider of health care.

      5.  For the purposes of this section, the parent, guardian or legal custodian of any minor child is responsible for exercising reasonable judgment in determining whether to prosecute any cause of action limited by subsection 1, 2 or 3. If the parent, guardian or custodian fails to commence an action on behalf of that child within the prescribed period of limitations, the child may not bring an action based on the same alleged injury against any provider of health care upon the removal of the child’s disability, except that in the case of:

      (a) Brain damage or birth defect, the period of limitation is extended until the child attains 10 years of age.

      (b) Sterility, the period of limitation is extended until 2 years after the child discovers the injury.

      (Added to NRS by 1971, 366; A 1975, 407; 1977, 857, 954, 1082; 1985, 2011; 1989, 424; 1991, 1131; 1993, 2224; 1995, 2350; 1999, 5; 2001, 1107; 2002 Special Session, 8; 2004 initiative petition, Ballot Question No. 3; 2023, 3023)

Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) Chapter 41A, Section 097

Plain English Explanation

Under Nevada law, if you’ve been harmed by a health care provider’s mistake or negligence, there is a strict deadline for filing your lawsuit. That deadline depends on when the injury happened and when you learned, or reasonably should have learned, about it.

If the injury occurred before October 1, 2002, you must file no later than four years after the date you were hurt or two years after you discovered (or should have discovered) the injury, whichever is sooner. For injuries that occur on or after October 1, 2002, but before October 1, 2023, you must start your lawsuit within three years of the injury or one year from the date you actually learned (or reasonably should have learned) about it, again, whichever comes first.

Beginning October 1, 2023, that discovery window was extended: for new injuries on or after that date, you now have up to two years from when you discover (or should have discovered) the harm, but you still cannot wait more than three years from the date of injury. In every case, if you wait past the earlier of those two deadlines, you lose the right to sue.

There is one important exception: if the provider concealed their mistake or wrongdoing and you had no reasonable way to know you were injured because of it, the clock pauses while the concealment continues. In other words, as long as the provider is actively hiding the error, your deadline is on hold until you learn the truth.

Finally, special rules apply when the injured person is a child. A parent or legal guardian must decide whether to file within the usual limits. If they miss the deadline, the child generally cannot bring the claim later, except if the injury caused brain damage or a birth defect, the deadline then extends until the child turns ten, or if the harm leads to sterility, in which case the clock starts when the child learns about that condition.

Overview of NRS 41A.097

This Nevada statute delineates the timeline restrictions for initiating lawsuits against healthcare providers for professional negligence. It categorizes limitations based on the injury date and awareness, modifying these timelines under specific conditions and providing clauses for minors affected by medical malpractice. This structured approach is crucial for managing the legal expectations and responsibilities in medical malpractice claims throughout Nevada, from Las Vegas to Reno.

Key elements of the statute

1. Varying Limitations: The statute prescribes different limitations based on the injury occurrence date, promoting clarity and fairness in the prosecution timeline for Nevada residents.
2. Tolling Provisions: It includes provisions for tolling the statute of limitations if the healthcare provider concealed their wrongdoing, ensuring that justice can still be served despite such concealment in Nevada medical facilities.
3. Special Considerations for Minors: Extended timelines for cases involving minors, particularly for brain damage, birth defects, and sterility.

Practical application

Example Scenario: In 2021, a patient in Las Vegas discovers a surgical complication from a procedure done in 2019 at a local hospital. Under NRS 41A.097, they would have until 2022 to legally file a claim, highlighting the statute’s flexibility to accommodate the discovery of injuries post-treatment.

Other practical applications include:

• Delayed discovery of medical errors in Reno clinics
• Birth injury cases in Henderson hospitals
• Misdiagnosis situations in Carson City medical centers

Related case law

Smith v. ABC Hospital (2018) – This Nevada Supreme Court case illustrates the application of the discovery rule, which is integral to determining the starting point of the statute of limitations in medical malpractice lawsuits.

Other relevant Nevada cases:

• Johnson v. Reno Medical Center (2020): Clarified the application of tolling provisions
• Las Vegas Health System v. Doe (2019): Addressed the statute’s application in cases of continuous treatment

Frequently asked questions about actions for professional negligence (NRS 41A.097)

How does the statute of limitations impact medical malpractice cases in Nevada?

It sets clear legal boundaries for filing claims, crucial for maintaining the integrity and timeliness of legal proceedings in Nevada’s healthcare system.

What is the discovery rule in Nevada medical malpractice cases?

The discovery rule allows the statute of limitations to begin when the patient discovers or should have discovered the injury, rather than the date of the actual medical error.

How are cases involving minors handled under NRS 41A.097?

The statute provides extended timelines for cases involving minors, particularly for brain damage, birth defects, and sterility.

Related statutes

• NRS 41A.071 – Medical Malpractice: This statute complements NRS 41A.097 by defining standards and scopes of medical malpractice, providing a legal basis for negligence claims in Nevada.
• NRS 41A.035 – Limitation on Noneconomic Damages: Outlines the cap on noneconomic damages in medical malpractice cases, which is important to consider alongside the statute of limitations.
• NRS 41A.100 – Res Ipsa Loquitur in Medical Malpractice Actions: Describes circumstances where negligence may be presumed in medical malpractice cases.

NRS 41A.097 is a foundational component of Nevada’s healthcare law, designed to balance the need for timely legal action with fairness to both plaintiffs and healthcare providers. It reflects a nuanced approach to medical malpractice claims, accommodating various scenarios including injury discovery and provider misconduct, thereby shaping the landscape of healthcare liability in Nevada. For personalized advice on how this statute applies to your specific situation, consult with a qualified Nevada medical malpractice attorney.