Medical Jurisprudence Commons^™

Planned Parenthood Mar Monte, Inc. V. State Ex Rel. Office Of The Nevada Attorney General (Civil), 142 Nev. Adv. Op. 40 (May 28, 2026), Charnel Gibson

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Nevada’s parental notification abortion statute is likely unconstitutionally vague because it fails to provide physicians with adequate notice of the conduct required and permits arbitrary enforcement.

Bourne Vs. Valdes, M.D., 141 Nev. Adv. Op. 30 (June 12, 2025), Sierra Bergquist

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

As a matter of first impression, the Nevada Supreme Court determined the “suicide rule” is not a complete defense to claims of medical malpractice. Suicide does not relieve a medical provider of liability for the patient’s death. The determination is instead resolved under the established framework of medical malpractice law.

A Right To Be Born?: What Dobbs Could Mean For Artificial Reproductive Technologies, Stewart Chang

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Transparency In Forensic Exams, Dorothy Sims, Chris Dove, Richard Frederick

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Cummings V. Barber, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 18 (April 2, 2020), Alexis Taitel

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

No abstract provided.

Trial And Error: Legislating Adr For Medical Malpractice Reform, Lydia Nussbaum

Scholarly Works

The U.S. healthcare system has a problem: hundreds of thousands of people die each year, and over a million are injured, by medical mistakes that could have been avoided. Furthermore, over ninety percent of these patients and their families never learn of the errors or receive redress. This problem persists, despite myriad reforms to the medical malpractice system, because of lawmakers' dominant focus on reducing providers' liability insurance costs. Reform objectives are beginning to change, however, and the vehicle for implementing these changes is alternative dispute resolution ("ADR"). Historically, legislatures deployed ADR to curb malpractice litigation and restrict patients' access …

Clinical Criteria For Physician Aid In Dying, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

More than 20 years ago, even before voters in Oregon had enacted the first aid in dying (AID) statute in the United States, Timothy Quill and colleagues proposed clinical criteria AID. Their proposal was carefully considered and temperate, but there were little data on the practice of AID at the time. (With AID, a physician writes a prescription for life-ending medication for a terminally ill, mentally capacitated adult.) With the passage of time, a substantial body of data on AID has developed from the states of Oregon and Washington. For more than 17 years, physicians in Oregon have been authorized …

Piroozi V. Eighth Jud. Dict. Ct., 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 100 (Dec. 31, 2015), Jessie Folkestad

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

Real parties in interest, Hurst and Abbington sought and obtained a pretrial order from the district court barring petitioners, Dr. Piroozi and Dr. Blahnik, from arguing comparative fault of settled defendants at trial and including those defendants’ names on the verdict forms. In granting the Writ of Mandamus filed by the petitioners, the Supreme Court of Nevada resolved a conflict between NRS 41.141(3) and NRS 41A.045, holding that NRS 41A.045 preempts NRS 41.141(3) and entitles a defendant to argue the percentage of fault of settled defendants at trial and to include the settled defendant’s names on the jury verdict form.

In Re Guardianship Of Hailu, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 89 (Nov. 16, 2015), Adrienne Brantley

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that under NRS § 451.007 (the Uniform Determination of Death Act) the District court failed to consider whether the American Association of Neurology (AAN) guidelines adequately measure all functions of the entire brain and whether the guidelines are considered accepted medical standards by states that have adopted the Act.

William Nathan Baxter V. Dignity Health, Et Al, 131 Nev. Adv. Op. 76 (September 24, 2015), Andrea Orwoll

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court considered an appeal from a district court order dismissing a medical malpractice complaint. The Court held that because NRS § 41A.071 creates threshold requirements for bringing medical malpractice suits, it must be construed consistently with the liberal pleading requirements. The Court reversed and remanded.

Summary Of Zohar V. Zbiegien, 130 Nev. Adv. Op. 74, Scott Lundy

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that an expert affidavit attached to a medical malpractice complaint, which otherwise properly supports the allegations of medical malpractice contained in the complaint but does not identify all the defendants by name and refers to them only as staff of the medical facility, may still comply with the requirements of NRS 41A.071 ]“if it is clear that the defendants and the court received sufficient notice of the nature and basis of the medical malpractice claims.” In order to make this determination, courts should read a medical malpractice complaint and the plaintiff’s expert affidavit together.

Summary Of Leavitt V. Siems, 130 Adv. Nev. Op. 54, Michael Paretti

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court concluded that: (1) expert alternative causation testimony is permissible; (2) ex parte communication, even when improper, only warrants a new trial when prejudice is established; and, (3) an employee’s default may not be used against an employer codefendant contesting liability.

Concussions And Sports: Introduction, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

A Restatement Of Health Care Law, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Aging Populations And Physician Aid In Dying: The Evolution Of State Government Policy, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

Professor David Orentlicher explores the evolution of physician assisted suicide from illegal taboo to the passage of Death with Dignity legislation and caselaw.

Employer-Based Health Care Insurance: Not So Exceptional After All, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Changing Legal Climate For Physician Aid In Dying, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Health Care Reform And Efforts To Encourage Healthy Behavior By Individuals, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Future Of The Affordable Care Act: Protecting Economic Health More Than Physical Health?, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Nevada's Medical Malpractice Damages Cap: One For All Heirs Or One For Each?, Patrick C. Mcdonnell

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Deactivating Implanted Cardiac Devices: Euthanasia Or The Withdrawal Of Treatment?, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Concussion And Football: Failures To Respond By The Nfl And The Medical Profession, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

The Fda’S Graphic Tobacco Warning And The First Amendment, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Nfib V. Sebelius: Proportionality In The Exercise Of Congressional Power, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

With its opinion on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), the U.S. Supreme Court sparked much discussion regarding the implications of the case for other federal statutes. In particular, scholars have debated the significance of the Court's recognition of an anticoercion limit to the Spending Clause power.

When it recognized an anticoercion limit for the ACA's Medicaid expansion, the Court left considerable uncertainty as to the parameters of that limit. This essay sketches out one valuable and very plausible interpretation of the Court's new anticoercion principle. It also indicates how this new principle can address a long-standing problem …

Rights To Health Care In The United States: Inherently Unstable, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Toward Acceptance Of Uterus Transplants, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

Insights From A National Conference: "Conflicts Of Interest In The Practice Of Medicine", David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.

All Illnesses Are (Not) Created Equal: Reforming Federal Mental Health Insurance Law, Stacey A. Tovino

Scholarly Works

This Article is the second, and most important, installment in a three-part series that presents a comprehensive challenge to lingering legal distinctions between physical and mental illness. The basic impetus for this historical, medical, and legal project is a belief that there exists no rational or consistent method of distinguishing physical and mental illness in the context of health insurance law. The first installment in this series narrowly inquired as to whether a particular set of disorders, the postpartum mood disorders, are or should be classified as physical or mental illnesses in a range of health law contexts.* This second …

Shielding Hippocrates: Nevada's Expanded Pleading Standard For Medical Malpractice Actions And The Need For Legislative Reform, Justin Shiroff

Nevada Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Can Congress Make You Buy Broccoli? And Why It Doesn’T Matter, David Orentlicher

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.