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; providing for preferential scheduling of claims filed by claimants who are 70 years of age or older or who are critically ill; revising the provisions governing the admissibility at trial of certain findings of a screening panel; 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 a new section to read as follows:

1-3 1. If a claimant is 70 years of age or older or suffers from an illness

1-4 or condition which raises a substantial medical doubt that the claimant

1-5 will survive until a determination is made by a screening panel, the

1-6 claimant may file a written request with the division to give preference in

1-7 scheduling the hearing of the claim filed by the claimant. The request

1-8 must set forth facts showing that the claimant is 70 years of age or older

1-9 or suffers from an illness or condition which raises a substantial medical

1-10 doubt that the claimant will survive until a determination is made by a

1-11 screening panel.

1-12 2. The division shall schedule the hearing of claims for which

1-13 preference has been granted pursuant to subsection 1 based on the order

1-14 in which the division received the requests for preference.

1-15 Sec. 2. NRS 41A.016 is hereby amended to read as follows:

1-16 41A.016 1. No cause of action involving medical or dental

1-17 malpractice may be filed until the medical or dental malpractice case has

1-18 been submitted to an appropriate screening panel and a determination made

2-1 by such panel as provided in NRS 41A.003 to 41A.069, inclusive, and any

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

2-3 to dismissal without prejudice for failure to comply with this section.

2-4 2. [The] Except as otherwise provided in subsection 3, the written

2-5 findings of the screening panel are admissible in any action concerning that

2-6 complaint which is subsequently filed in district court. No other evidence

2-7 concerning the screening panel or its deliberations is admissible and no

2-8 member of the screening panel may be called to testify in any such action.

2-9 3. If the screening panel finds that it is unable to reach a decision on

2-10 the issue of medical malpractice, the written findings of the screening

2-11 panel are not admissible in any action concerning that complaint which

2-12 is subsequently filed in district court.

2-13 Sec. 3. NRS 41A.069 is hereby amended to read as follows:

2-14 41A.069 1. [In] Unless the written findings of the screening panel

2-15 are not admissible pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 41A.016, in any

2-16 action for medical malpractice tried before a jury, the following instructions

2-17 must be given:

2-18 (a) If testimony of a medical expert was given at the review by the

2-19 screening panel:

2-20 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

2-21 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

2-22 were based upon a review of medical records and the testimony of a

2-23 medical expert based upon his review of those records. These findings

2-24 are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are not

2-25 conclusive on your determination of the case.

2-26 (b) If testimony of a medical expert was not given at the review by the

2-27 screening panel:

2-28 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

2-29 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

2-30 were based solely upon a review of the medical records. These

2-31 findings are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are

2-32 not conclusive on your determination of the case.

2-33 2. [In] Unless the written findings of the screening panel are not

2-34 admissible pursuant to subsection 3 of NRS 41A.016, in any action for

2-35 dental malpractice tried before a jury, the following instructions must be

2-36 given:

2-37 (a) If testimony of an expert witness was given at the review by the

2-38 screening panel:

2-39 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

2-40 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

2-41 were based upon a review of dental records and the testimony of an

2-42 expert witness based upon his review of those records. These findings

3-1 are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are not

3-2 conclusive on your determination of the case.

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

3-4 screening panel:

3-5 During the course of this trial certain evidence was admitted

3-6 concerning the findings of a screening panel. The findings of the panel

3-7 were based solely upon a review of the dental records. These findings

3-8 are to be given the same weight as any other evidence, but are not

3-9 conclusive on your determination of the case.

~