IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
CHRISTOPHER M. NEVAREZ, M.D., No. 84061
Petitioner,
vs.
THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, !MED
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE APR 2 1 2022
MARY KAY HOLTHUS, DISTRICT E1.17.AO A. BROWN
OF
JUDGE,
CLERK
Respondents,
and
HYE CHONG DOSS, INDIVIDUALLY
AND AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF
THE ESTATE OF WES DOSS;
VICTORIA SUZANNE DOSS; AND
ANGELA ELIZABETH JONES,
Real Parties in Interest.
ORDER DENYING PETITION
FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This is an original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging
a district court order denying a motion to dismiss a complaint in a medical
malpractice action. Petitioner argues that writ relief is warranted because
the NRS 41A.071 medical expert affidavit provided by real parties in
interest was not submitted by a professional who practices or has practiced
in an area that is substantially similar to petitioner's practice area. See
NRS 41A.071(2).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
(0) 1947A Artm 2-1z62S
"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." Intl Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court,
124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see NRS 34.160. Writ relief is
generally not available, however, when an adequate and speedy legal
remedy exists. Intl Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. A writ
of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and whether a petition for
extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within this court's
discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 679,
818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991).
An appeal from final judgment usually constitutes an adequate
remedy at law. Intl Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558
("[B]ecause an appeal from the final judgment typically constitutes an
adequate and speedy legal remedy, we generally decline to consider writ
petitions that challenge interlocutory district court orders denying motions
to dismiss."). Here, petitioner has an adequate remedy at law by way of
appeal from final judgment.
Additionally, we have reviewed the record and decline to
exercise our discretion to grant extraordinary relief here. See Borger v.
Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 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
generally 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
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) I 947A .011PID
treatment at issue rather than the defendant's area of practice or specific
license). Accordingly, we
ORDER the petition DENIED.
Parraguirre
, j.
Hardesty
Al4C11-.0
Stiglich
cc: Hon. Mary Kay Holthus, District Judge
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Jamison & Associates, PLLC
McCullough & Associates, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
to) 1947A OMD