Tuesday December 6, 2022 - Carson City - Las Vegas
December 6 , 2022, Oral Arguments
Valley Health System, LLC vs. Murray C/W 80113/80968
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Lytle vs. September Trust, Dated March 23, 1972 C/W 84538
Carson City – 3:30 p.m. – Hardesty/Stiglich/Herndon
Valley Health System, LLC vs. Murray C/W 80113/80968
Docket No. 79658/80113/80968
Las Vegas – 1:30 p.m. – Full Court
Twenty-nine-year-old LaQuinta Murray was admitted to Centennial Hospital with a sickle cell crisis, and her attending physician ordered 30 mg of Toradol to be administered every six hours. Toradol’s “black box” insert recommends a maximum daily dose not to exceed 120 mgs and warns that exceeding this dose can give rise to fatal complications. Because of Centennial’s policies, Murray sometimes received more than 120 mg of Toradol in a 24-hour period during her three-day stay. Murray died and her estate and heirs filed a wrongful death action against Centennial. The jury found for plaintiffs and awarded over $16 million in largely non-economic compensatory damages, and nearly $32.5 million in punitive damages. Centennial appeals, arguing (1) the district court erred in entering judgment against Centennial for intentional breach of fiduciary duty; (2) Chapter 41A applies to the jury’s fiduciary duty finding and reduces the damages awards; (3) this court should reverse or reduce the punitive damages award; (4) Centennial is entitled to a new trial or remittitur; (5) the district court erred in awarding prejudgment interest on future damages; and (6) the district court abused its discretion in awarding attorney fees and costs.
Lytle vs. September Trust, Dated March 23, 1972 C/W 84538
Docket No. 81689/84538
Las Vegas – 3:30 p.m. – Hardesty/Stiglich/Herndon
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging a contempt order in a real property action. Petitioners were ordered not to collect judgments obtained against their HOA from the property owners in the neighborhood. Petitioners successfully had receiver appointed over the HOA in a new case, partially to enable them to collect on their judgments from the property owners, without informing the new court of the prior injunction. The district court concluded that a receivership would violate the prior injunction and held them in contempt. ISSUES: Did the district court arbitrarily and capriciously abuse its discretion when it held petitioners in contempt for (1) seeking a receivership; or (2) requesting the receiver have the power to issue special assessments against the property owners to pay the petitioners’ judgments.