November 29, 2023, Oral Arguments
Engelson vs Dignity Health
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Engelson vs Dignity Health
Docket No. 84978-COA
Las Vegas – 10:00 a.m. – Court of Appeals
Appellant filed a lawsuit alleging various types of negligence, including professional negligence, against a hospital and a skilled nursing facility (collectively, respondents) after a patient developed pressure ulcers and then passed away. Respondents filed a motion to dismiss appellant’s complaint in the district court on statute of limitations grounds, and the district court granted the motions to dismiss, finding “irrefutable evidence” demonstrated that the appellant’s complaint was untimely filed more than a year after she discovered the legal injury. When appellant moved for reconsideration on the basis that her complaint was timely filed both because it asserted wrongful death claims and because the skilled nursing facility was not subject to the requirements of NRS Chapter 41A, the district court rejected both claims on the merits. Appellant appeals.
Issues: (1) Did the district court err in finding “irrefutable evidence” that appellant was aware of her legal injury more than a year prior to filing her complaint? (2) Was the accrual date for NRS 41A.097(2)’s one-year discovery rule a question of fact for the jury to decide? (3) Was the statute of limitations applicable to this case tolled by Governor Sisolak’s Emergency Declaration and Emergency Directives? (4) Did the district court commit reversible error in finding that all of appellant’s negligence claims sounded in professional negligence? (5) Did the district court commit reversible error in finding that the one-year statute of limitations applied to respondent skilled nursing facility? (6) Did the district court commit reversible error in finding that appellant did not adequately plead and support a wrongful death claim? (7) Did the district court commit reversible error in denying appellant’s motion for reconsideration?
Igtiben, M.D. vs Dist Ct. (Smith)
Docket No. 86567-COA
Las Vegas – 10:30 a.m. – Court of Appeals
This petition for a writ of mandamus challenges the denial of a motion to dismiss on two bases. First, petitioner argues that the motion to dismiss should have been granted because real party in interest was on inquiry notice years prior to the filing of the complaint and therefore the one-year statute of limitations set forth in NRS 41A.097(2) applies. Second, petitioner argues that real party in interest submitted an impermissible expert affidavit under NRS 41A.071(2) because the expert is a pathologist who has not treated a patient since the 1980s opining on the care provided by petitioner—a hospitalist—and thus the expert does not practice in a substantially similar area of practice as petitioner.