Tuesday, April 27, 2021-Las Vegas-Court of Appeals
79431-COA GAUTAM VS. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.
Docket Number: 79431-COA
Las Vegas - 10:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from final judgment in a tort action.
ISSUES:
Issues: whether the district court erred when it: (1) excluded appellant’s expert witness based on its conclusion that the expert lacked the necessary training and qualifications; (2) prevented appellant from calling respondent's expert witness in his case-in-chief because appellant is permitted to call her as an adverse witness under NRS 50.115; and (3) granted respondent’s motion for judgment as a matter of law based upon appellant’s failure to present sufficient evidence during his case-in-chief to proceed to the jury.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
78957-COA FOSTER VS. KING, M.D.
Docket Number: 78957-COA C/W 79653
Las Vegas - 11:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
These are consolidated appeals from a district court order granting summary judgment in a professional negligence action (Docket No. 78957) and a post-judgment award of costs.
ISSUES:
Here we consider whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment for respondents by failing to view the evidence in the light most favorable to appellant and whether the district court erred in awarding costs.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
80133-COA HARO III VS. BOUCHON AT THE VENETIAN; AND REPUBLIC INDEMNITY
Docket Number: 80133-COA
Las Vegas - 1:30 P.M. - Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in a workers’ compensation matter. Fernando Haro III appeals the denial of his petition for judicial review following the denial of his workers’ compensation claim. Haro suffers from carpal tunnel syndrome in both arms and lateral epicondylitis in his right arm, and he argues that his work as a chef de partie at Bouchon at the Venetian Resort was the cause of these diseases. He claims that these were compensable occupational diseases covered under Nevada’s Workers’ Compensation statutes and that the agency determination denying his claim was erroneous as was the district court’s denial of his petition for judicial review.
ISSUES:
Issues: whether (1) Haro's first workers’ compensation claim was untimely filed; (2) the rebuttable presumption under NRS 617.358 applies when a worker files a workers’ compensation claim for an occupational disease after going on medical leave and no longer receiving income but before the employer formally terminates the worker’s employment; (3) substantial evidence supports the appeals officer’s determination that Haro did not suffer an occupational disease; (4) the appeals officer’s application of the last-injurious-exposure rule was erroneous because NRS 617.366 was the proper legal standard; (5) the appeals officer abused her discretion by not finding a medical question pursuant to NRS 616C.360 and not ordering an independent medical examination; and (6) Haro’s second workers’ compensation claim for epicondylitis is an extension of his first claim for carpal tunnel syndrome and should be treated as timely filed as part of the first claim.
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.
81637-COA KEOLIS TRANSIT SERVS., LLC VS. DIST. CT. (TOTH)
Docket Number: 81637-COA
Las Vegas - 3:00 P.M. - Court of Appeals
This is an original petition for a writ of prohibition that arises out of a personal injury action for injuries allegedly sustained in a car accident.
ISSUES:
Here we consider whether writ relief is appropriate to address petitioner’s contention that the district court exceeded its authority when it ordered petitioner to immediately produce surveillance videos and reports petitioner contends were created in anticipation of litigation and are privileged under NRCP 26(b)(3).
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.