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:÷
1
: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
2
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
3
101 I947A 444110.
lealliiittAiliaisidriiiilailitkiailagfik,&:"..