446, 460, 244 P.3d 765, 775 (2010) (concluding that an order granting or
denying judgment as a matter of law is reviewed de novo); MC. Multi-
Family Dev., L.L.C. v. Crestdale Assocs., Ltd., 124 Nev. 901, 910, 193 P.3d
536, 542 (2008) (stating that the evidence and all inferences must be
viewed most favorably to the party against whom the motion for a
judgment as a matter of law is made). Although appellants argue that the
one-year statute of limitations began to run at the latest on the date that
respondent received his cancer diagnosis, and thus that the district court
should have found as a matter of law that respondent's claim was barred
by the statute of limitations, conflicting evidence was presented regarding
when respondent was put on inquiry notice of his claim against
appellants. See Winn v, Sunrise Hasp. & Med. Ctr., 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 23,
277 P.3d 458, 462-63 (2012) (stating that the accrual date for NRS
41A.097(2)'s one-year statute of limitations ordinarily presents a question
of fact to be decided by the jury, and a district court may make such a
determination as a matter of law only when evidence irrefutably
demonstrates this accrual date); M.C. Multi-Family Deu., L.L.C., 124 Nev.
at 910, 193 P.3d at 542 (holding that judgment as a matter of law is proper
only when "the evidence is so overwhelming for one party that any other
verdict would be contrary to the law" (citations omitted)).
Specifically, the record shows that respondent was not
informed of any misdiagnosis or negligence on the part of appellants on or
before the date of his cancer diagnosis and was not aware that Dr.
Gilbreth had determined several years earlier that respondent had a knot
in his tongue until respondent later obtained his medical records from
appellants. Both Dr. Gilbreth and respondent also testified that they each
continued to consider Dr. Gilbreth to be respondent's dentist even after
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A otia>
the cancer diagnosis, and respondent testified that he remained satisfied
with Dr. Gilbreth's care even after his diagnosis and during his cancer
treatment. Because conflicting evidence was presented regarding when
the one-year statute of limitations began to run, the district court properly
determined that the issue was one of fact for the jury to determine and
denied appellants' motion. Winn., 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 23, 277 P.3d at 462-
63; M.C. Multi-Family Dev., L.L.C., 124 Nev. at 910, 193 P.3d at 542.
Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
, J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Elissa F. Cadish, District Judge
Israel Kunin, Settlement Judge
Law Offices of Alfred F. Belcuore
Mandelbaum, Ellerton & Associates
Marcin Lambirth, LLP
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A 4e1)4