PLAINTIFF ATTORNEY CONTINGENCY FEE LIMITATIONS

Not addressed in Nevada law, this change in the law will provide progressively greater percentage of any award or settlement to go to the injured patient.

LIMITATION OF NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES (Pain & Suffering) TO $350,000

This change in AB 1 would eliminate judicial discretion to eliminate the $350,000 cap, would eliminate the "stacking" of the $350,000 from each defendant to each plaintiff, and would eliminate the requirement of maintaining a $1 million/$3 million dollar professional liability limit policy. This law would also remove the ambiguity of the "in the aggregate" language which is feared could be ruled to apply to the $3,000,000 limit of the policy rather than the $1,000,000 limit per case. Should this occur, there would be an immediate and devastating rise in medical professional liability insurance premiums. While not binding authority for the Nevada Supreme Court, the California Supreme Court has ruled that the language used in this section of the Initiative applies to "per injury", so that only one $350,000 noneconomic damage limit applies, regardless of the number of plaintiffs or defendants.

ELIMINATION OF JOINT AND SEVERAL LIABILITY FOR HEALTH CARE PROVIDERS RENDERING MEDICAL SERVICES WITHIN THE SCOPE OF THEIR LICENSE.

This change in Nevada law would remove the Joint liability of providers of health care for economic damages. Thus, health care providers would be liable for their percentage of fault, but not for the fault of others. The Initiative would eliminate the "deep pocket" liability of providers of health care.

CHANGE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FROM AB 1’s TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF DISCOVERY OF THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENT INJURY TO ONE YEAR

This change in Nevada law would require an injured patient to sue within one year, rather than two, of the time the patient discovered, or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury. The exception to this in Nevada law would remain unchanged.

CHANGE NEVADA’s COLLATERAL SOURCE RULE TO PERMIT THE DEFENDANT TO INTRODUCE EVIDENCE OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PLAINTIFF

This would eliminate the "double dipping" plaintiffs now receive when the patient has insurance or other sources which have compensated the patient for his or her medical bills and/or disability. Under current Nevada law, jurors are not permitted to know of these payments and reimbursements. The Initiative would empower our juries by giving them more facts upon which to base their decisions.

CHANGE NEVADA LAW TO PERMIT ANY PARTY TO REQUEST PERIODIC PAYMENTS OF FUTURE DAMAGES OVER $50,000

Nevada law currently permits only the claimant/plaintiff to request periodic payments of future damages. This virtually never occurs because the claimant/plaintiff wants their money "now." It is assumed that often the "lump sum" of money is expended for purposes other than for which it was intended (future medical care). The claimant/plaintiff, having expended the funds, then becomes a financial burden on others or on the taxpayers of the state for his or her future medical care. By requiring periodic payments of future damages, the patient receives payments of the award in future increments so that money is available to pay for medical and other expenses. The new laws will more fairly benefit the injured patient because they will include limitations on attorney contingency fees (more money to the injured patient), the periodic payment of future damages (payment spread out in the future to cover medical needs), and the elimination of the collateral source rule prohibiting juries from receiving evidence of collateral source payments (juries will have the option to stop the "double dipping" now occurring.)