Opinion
No. 59556.
03-08-2012
Thomas Ross TETZLAFF, M.D.; No. 59556 Brian Thong Vovan, M.D.; Barry Stephen Frank, M.D.; and Giola & Associates, Ltd. d/b/a Pediatric Acute Care, Inc. a/k/a Children's Acute Care a/k/a Children's Acute Care, Inc., Petitioners, v. The EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF the STATE of Nevada, In and for the COUNTY OF CLARK; and The Honorable Jerry A. Wiese, District Judge, Respondents, and Nyiesha Costa, Individually and as Natural Mother of Nikhelais Costa; The Estate of Nikhelais Costa; Summerlin Hospital Medical Center, LLC d/b/a Summerlin Hospital Medical Center ; CHW Nevada Imaging Company, LLC d/b/a Nevada Imaging Centers; Yu Tian, M.D., P.C.; and Yu Tian, M.D., Real Parties in Interest.
Mandelbaum, Ellerton & McBride Eglet Wall Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd.
Mandelbaum, Ellerton & McBride
Eglet Wall
Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC/Las Vegas
John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd.
ORDER DENYING PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS
This original petition for a writ of mandamus challenges a district court order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss a complaint in a medical malpractice action.
A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion. NRS 34.160 ; International Game Tech. v. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008).
After considering the parties' arguments and supporting documents, we conclude that writ relief is not warranted because the affidavit petitioners challenge satisfies NRS 41A.071's requirements and purpose. NRS 41A.071 (requiring an affidavit from a medical expert that supports the allegations contained in the action); Washoe Med. Ctr. v. Dist. Ct., 122 Nev. 1298, 1304, 148 P.3d 790, 794 (2006) (explaining that NRS 41A.071's “purpose is ‘to lower costs, reduce frivolous lawsuits, and ensure that medical malpractice actions are filed in good faith based upon competent expert medical opinion’ ”) (quoting Syzdel v. Markman, 121 Nev. 453, 459, 117 P.3d 200, 204 (2005) ). Accordingly, we
In light of this decision, petitioners' motion for a stay of the underlying proceedings is denied.