Wednesday, June 8, 2016 - Las Vegas
Stafford vs. Magruder
Docket Number: 66415
Las Vegas - 10:00 a.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver
Following an auto collision, respondent Rebecca Magruder filed a complaint for negligence against appellant Sidney Stafford and his employer, appellant Pulte Building Systems, LLC (collectively, “appellants”). Before trial, Magruder filed a motion in limine seeking, in relevant part, to strike appellants’ accident reconstruction and biomechanical experts on the ground that their opinions were inadmissible under Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008). The district court denied the motion. At trial, Magruder called one of appellants’ experts during her case-in-chief. At the conclusion of the liability phase of trial, the jury returned a verdict finding both Magruder and appellants negligent and assigning 55% fault to Magruder. Magruder filed a motion for new trial pursuant to NRCP 59(a)(1) in which she argued that she was prejudiced by the expert’s inadmissible testimony and by jury instruction no. 22. Without addressing the jury instruction, the district court concluded that the expert should have been precluded from testifying and granted the motion. This appeal followed.
ISSUES:
Whether the district court abused its discretion by granting Magruder’s motion for new trial.
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.
Rea vs. Sunrise Hopsital and Medical Center
Docket Number: 66075
Las Vegas - 1:00 p.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver
Appellants Christen and Justin Rea brought their five-month old daughter, Riley, to the emergency room at respondent Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center on March 24, 2011. The Reas were concerned because Riley was lethargic, vomiting, and had not urinated in several hours. After conducting a urinalysis and chest x-ray, respondents Dr. Aisha Asif and Dr. Robert Kilpatrick discharged Riley. The following morning Riley’s condition had not improved so Christen brought Riley to her pediatrician. Riley threw up a coffee-ground-like substance and the pediatrician instructed Christen to immediately take Riley to the emergency room. Upon arrival at Sunrise Hospital, staff determined Riley had acute myeloid leukemia and began chemotherapy. Riley ultimately passed away on March 27, 2011. The Reas then initiated a lawsuit alleging Sunrise Hospital and various staff members negligently treated Riley on March 24, 2011 and as a result, their treatment contributed to Riley’s death. Respondents moved for summary judgment, alleging the Reas did not prove causation. The district court granted respondents’ motion for summary judgment and the Reas appeal.
ISSUES:
Whether the district court erred by granting respondents’ motion for summary judgment.
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.
Moraga vs. Employers Insurance Company of Nevada
Docket Number: 66090
Las Vegas - 1:30 p.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver
In 1989, appellant Roy Moraga sustained an industrial injury for which he received worker’s compensation benefits. In 1990, Moraga began a life term of incarceration with the Nevada Department of Corrections. Moraga and respondent Employers Insurance Company of Nevada (“EICON”) stipulated to reopen Moraga’s worker’s compensation claim for further evaluation, but Moraga was not transported to his scheduled appointments and the claim was closed. Years later, Moraga filed a complaint with Respondent Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”) seeking a benefit penalty based on EICON’s alleged failure to comply with their stipulations. The DIR determined that EICON complied with the stipulations and, therefore, declined to impose a benefit penalty or administrative fine. The DIR also noted that more than two years had passed from the date compliance was due. After an appeals officer affirmed the DIR’s decision, Moraga filed a petition for judicial review with the district court. The district court denied Moraga’s petition, and this appeal followed.
ISSUES:
Whether the appeals officer erred by affirming the DIR’s determination.
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.