Choi, M.D. v. Dist. Ct. (N. Vista Hosp., Llc)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

CLARK CHOI, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL, No. 83124 Petitioner, vs.

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, [NI AND FOR THE COUNTY OF

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE

GLORIA STURMAN, DISTRICT

HLED JUDGE, JAN 1 8 2022 Respondents, and Bylit:÷ :7 1144)" , CASEY LUNDRIGAN, AS CO-SPECIAL c ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE

OF ELIZABETH ANNE PIATT,

DECEASED; CASEY LUNDRIGAN, AS

PARENT AND/OR GUARDIAN AND/OR

CUSTODIAN OF BENTLEY ANDREW

LUNDRIGAN-PIATT AND ZAYNE

MICHAEL LUNDRIGAN, MINORS AND

HEIRS OF ELIZABETH PIATT; NORTH

VISTA HOSPITAL, LLC, A FOREIGN

LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, D/B/A

NORTH VISTA HOSPITAL; FRANK J.

DELEE, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL;

SUNRISE HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL

CENTER, LLC, A FOREIGN LIMITED-

LIABILITY COMPANY; AND JYOTI

DESAI, M.D., AN INDIVIDUAL,

Real Parties in Interest.

ORDER DENYING PETITION

This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying a motion to dismiss that asserted the medical affidavit submitted with the complaint failed to satisfy NRS 41A.071. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Gloria Sturman, Judge.

SUPREME COVET

OF

NEVADA ith 1947A e „2.2-01(00$ ssagersid Petitioner Dr. Clark Choi seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to vacate the portion of its order denying his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with NRS 41A.071. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is within our sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). "A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires . . . or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion." Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160. Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude our intervention is not warranted here. See Borger v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 1021, 1028, 102 P.3d 600, 605 (2004) (explaining that under NRS 41A.071 a medical expert may opine so long as "their present or former practice reasonably relates to that engaged in by the defendant at the time of the alleged professional negligence."); see also Staccato v. Valley Hosp., 123 Nev. 526, 531-32, 170 P.3d 503, 506-07 (2007) (explaining, in the context of expert witnesses, that the expert's ability to opine to the standard of care depends upon the procedure or treatment at issue rather than the defendant's area of practice or specific license). Accordingly, we ORDER the petition DENIED.

J. Silver

, J. Cadish

J.

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

CO) I 947A alrya cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Messner Reeves LLP

Drummond Law Firm

McBride Hall

Christiansen Trial Lawyers

Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT

OF

NEVADA

101 I947A 444110. lealliiittAiliaisidriiiilailitkiailagfik,&:"..