Tuesday, March 20, 2018 - Carson City - Silver/Tao/ Gibbons
Dechambeau vs. Balkenbush, Esq.
Docket Number: 72879
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - Court of Appeals
Stephen C. Balkenbush, Esq. (and his law firm) represented the DeChambeau family in a medical malpractice lawsuit alleging the wrongful death of Neil DeChambeau in 2006. This suit was dismissed with prejudice, which the DeChambeaus assert—in the underlying attorney malpractice suit—was caused by Balkenbush’s negligence in handling the lawsuit. During pre-trial litigation, the parties waived expert reports. After discovery closed, the district court granted Balkenbush’s motion for summary judgment regarding the DeChambeaus’ inability to prove causation. The Nevada Supreme Court reversed and remanded on a prior appeal. Post-remand, the district court, without motion by either party, held a status hearing and issued a scheduling order with, inter alia, new deadlines for expert disclosures and rebuttal witnesses. Just before the deadline for expert disclosures, Balkenbush disclosed a new standard-of-care expert witness, without an expert report. The DeChambeaus unsuccessfully filed both a motion to strike and a motion in limine to exclude this expert’s testimony. The bifurcated trial commenced, and the new expert testified. The jury found the doctor was not negligent. The DeChambeaus now appeal.
ISSUES:
Whether 1) the district court abused its discretion by issuing a scheduling order modifying time for expert disclosures without motion or without good cause; 2) the district court erred in admitting expert testimony that did not satisfy the requirements in Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008) or Daubert v. Merell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); 3) the district court erred in admitting the new expert’s testimony without an expert report; 4) the new expert’s testimony fell below expert standards because it failed to present an alternative theory as to causation; and 5) the district court abused its discretion in denying the DeChambeaus’ request for a rebuttal expert witness.
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.
Meaders (Nathan) vs. State
Docket Number: 71703
Carson City - 10:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals
Appellant Nathan Allen Meaders was charged with one count of battery by a prisoner for an incident in April 2015 and two counts of battery by a prisoner for another incident in August 2015. Both incidents occurred in the Washoe County Jail. The State moved to join these separate cases into one case and the district court granted this motion. At trial, a jury convicted Meaders of all three counts of battery by a prisoner.
ISSUES:
Meaders appeals his convictions arguing, among other things, the district court should not have joined these cases and this error requires a reversal of his convictions.
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.
Estrada-Puentes (Eduardo) vs. State
Docket Number: 72335
Carson City - 11:30 A.M. - Court of Appeals
This is an appeal from a criminal conviction. Appellant Eduardo Estrada-Puentes killed his wife Stephanie by manual strangulation in their home in Elko, Nevada. A jury convicted Estrada-Puentes of first-degree murder, and the district court sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The parties do not dispute that Estrada-Puentes strangled Stephanie.
ISSUES:
Rather, on appeal, Estrada-Puentes asserts that there was insufficient evidence for a conviction of first-degree murder and that the evidence presented at trial necessitates a finding of voluntary manslaughter, and that prosecutorial misconduct prejudiced 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.