Senate Bill No. 479–Committee on Judiciary

March 18, 1999

____________

Referred to Committee on Judiciary

 

SUMMARY—Revises provisions governing actions for medical and dental malpractice. (BDR 3-506)

FISCAL NOTE: Effect on Local Government: No.

Effect on the State or on Industrial Insurance: No.

~

EXPLANATION – Matter in bolded italics is new; matter between brackets [omitted material] is material to be omitted. Green numbers along left margin indicate location on the printed bill (e.g., 5-15 indicates page 5, line 15).

 

AN ACT relating to malpractice; requiring the division of insurance of the department of business and industry to give preference to and expedite claims filed by claimants who are critically ill; revising the provisions governing the admissibility at trial of certain findings of a screening panel; creating a preference for the setting of a trial date for an action involving medical or dental malpractice; and providing other matters properly relating thereto.

 

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1-1 Section 1. Chapter 41A of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto

1-2 the provisions set forth as sections 2 and 3 of this act.

1-3 Sec. 2. In carrying out its duties pursuant to NRS 41A.033,

1-4 including, without limitation, selecting a screening panel and scheduling

1-5 a hearing, the division shall give preference to, and make a reasonable

1-6 effort to expedite, a claim filed by a claimant who suffers from an illness

1-7 or condition that raises a substantial medical doubt that the claimant will

1-8 survive until a determination is made by a screening panel.

1-9 Sec. 3. If an action for medical or dental malpractice is filed in

1-10 district court pursuant to NRS 41A.003 to 41A.069, inclusive, the court

1-11 shall give preference in setting a date for the trial of the action.

1-12 Sec. 4. NRS 41A.016 is hereby amended to read as follows:

1-13 41A.016 1. No cause of action involving medical or dental

1-14 malpractice may be filed until the medical or dental malpractice case has

1-15 been submitted to an appropriate screening panel and a determination made

1-16 by such panel as provided in NRS 41A.003 to 41A.069, inclusive, and any

2-1 action filed without satisfying the requirements of those sections is subject

2-2 to dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with this section.

2-3 2. [The] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, the written

2-4 findings of the screening panel are admissible in any action concerning that

2-5 complaint which is subsequently filed in district court. No other evidence

2-6 concerning the screening panel or its deliberations is admissible and no

2-7 member of the screening panel may be called to testify in any such action.

2-8 3. If the screening panel finds that it is unable to reach a decision on

2-9 the issue of medical malpractice, the written findings of the screening

2-10 panel are not admissible in any action concerning that complaint which

2-11 is subsequently filed in district court.

2-12 Sec. 5. NRS 41A.069 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2-13 41A.069 1. [In] Unless the written findings of the screening panel

2-14 are not admissible pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 41A.016, in any

2-15 action for medical malpractice tried before a jury, the following instructions

2-16 must be given:

2-17 (a) If testimony of a medical expert was given at the review by the

2-18 screening panel:

2-19 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

2-20 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

2-21 were based upon a review of medical records and the testimony of a

2-22 medical expert based upon his review of those records. These findings

2-23 are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are not

2-24 conclusive on your determination of the case.

2-25 (b) If testimony of a medical expert was not given at the review by the

2-26 screening panel:

2-27 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

2-28 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

2-29 were based solely upon a review of the medical records. These

2-30 findings are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are

2-31 not conclusive on your determination of the case.

2-32 2. [In] Unless the written findings of the screening panel are not

2-33 admissible pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 41A.016, in any action for

2-34 dental malpractice tried before a jury, the following instructions must be

2-35 given:

2-36 (a) If testimony of an expert witness was given at the review by the

2-37 screening panel:

2-38 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

2-39 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

2-40 were based upon a review of dental records and the testimony of an

2-41 expert witness based upon his review of those records. These findings

2-42 are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are not

2-43 conclusive on your determination of the case.

3-1 (b) If testimony of an expert witness was not given at the review by

3-2 the screening panel:

3-3 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

3-4 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

3-5 were based solely upon a review of the dental records. These findings

3-6 are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are not

3-7 conclusive on your determination of the case.

~