Wednesday, September 13, 2023 - Parraguirre/Herndon/Lee
September 13, 2023 Oral Argument
Taylor vs. Brill, M.D., Facog, Facs
Las Vegas–10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
In RE: Guardianship of Jones
Las Vegas–10:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
Taylor vs. Brill, M.D., Facog, Facs
Docket No. 83847
Las Vegas–10:00 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
This is an appeal from final judgment based on a jury verdict in a medical malpractice action. Appellant filed a medical malpractice complaint against respondent after he perforated her uterus and bowel during a hysteroscopy procedure. After a nine-day trial the jury issued a verdict in favor of respondent finding no liability under NRS 41A.015. Appellant raises the following issues on appeal: Whether the district court committed reversible error warranting a new trial by: (1) admitting evidence of informed consent that supported an assumption of risk defense to medical malpractice; (2) limiting voir dire questions on tort reform, KODIN, or a perceived medical malpractice crisis; (3) excluding evidence of over $200,000 in medical bills claimed as special damages, excluding an exemplar medical device, and allowing collateral source evidence of insurance write-downs; (4) barring certain phrases during closing argument; (5) refusing to give a pattern jury instruction on the role of insurance and giving a modified “mere happening” instruction; (6) limiting rebuttal and overruling certain objections to closing arguments.
.
In RE: Guardianship of Jones
Docket No. 84655
Las Vegas–10:30 a.m. – Herndon/Lee/Parraguirre
This is an appeal from a district court order awarding guardian ad litem fees. Respondents petitioned the district court for communication, visits, and vacation time with appellant, a protected person. The district court appointed a guardian ad litem to represent the best interests of the protected person. The order failed to state the hourly rate the guardian ad litem would be paid for its services. The guardian ad litem then filed her notice of appearance and notice of intent to seek fees. Subsequently, the guardian ad litem petitioned for fees pursuant to Rule 8(J) and NRS 159.344, et al. She sought an hourly rate of $400, the equivalent of her hourly rate as an attorney. The district court then granted the fees in full. ISSUES: (1) whether the district court has jurisdiction to award fees after failing to specify the guardian ad litem’s rate in the order of appointment, (2) whether the district court misinterpreted NRS 159.0455 and Nevada Statewide Guardianship Rules Rule 8 by concluding that it had to appoint an attorney, and (3) whether the district court erred in awarding the guardian ad litem fees at the attorney rate rather than the fiduciary rate.