Title: Dignity Health v. District Court

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

4140 Nev., Advance Opinion 10
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

DIGNITY HEALTH, D/B/A ST. ROSE
DOMINICAN HOSPITAL-SIENA,
CAMPUS; LILIANA RUIZ-LEON, D.O.;
TIMOTHY SAUTER, M.D.; AND
DAMON MASAKI, M._D.,
Petitioners,
‘THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE,
JOSEPH HARDY, JR., DISTRICT
JUDGE,
Respondents,

and
SAEED GOHARI, AS GUARDIAN AD
LITEM OF NAMMI GOHARI, A MINOR,
Real Party in Interest.

No. 86606

FILED

= age

wy. He

  

Original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district
court order denying a motion to dismiss in a medical malpractice action.
Petition denied.

Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, and Tyson J. Dobbs, Kenneth M. Webster,
and Tania Dawood, Las Vegas,
for Petitioner Dignity Health.

John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd., and John H. Cotton and Brad J. Shipley,
Las Vegas,
for Petitioners Liliana Ruiz-Leon, D.O., and Timothy Sauter, M.D.

McBride Hall and Robert C. McBride and 'T. Charlotte Buys, Las Vegas,
for Petitioner Damon Masaki, M.D.

2 - BPY

 
Claggett & Sykes Law Firm and Micah S. Echols, Charles L. Finlayson, and
David P. Snyder, Las Vegas; Springberg Law Firm, P.C., and Laurence B.
Springberg, Las Vegas,

for Real Party in Interest Saeed Gohari.

 

BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT, STIGLICH, PICKERING, and
PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.

OPINION

By the Court, PARRAGUIRRE, J.
NRS 41A.097(6) allows a plaintiff to sue healthcare providers
on behalf of a child for brain damage or a birth defect as late as the child’s
10th birthday. Here, we consider whether that limitations period was tolled
by a pair of gubernatorial emergency directives issued during the COVID-
19 pandemic in 2020, such that a 2022 complaint alleging brain damage and
birth defects filed 72 days after a child's 10th birthday is timely. We hold
that the district court correctly concluded that the directives tolled the
limitations period in NRS 41A.097(6) for 122 days, and thus the complaint
was timely filed. In so holding, we deny the instant petition, as petitioners’
argument that the directives’ tolling effect was inapplicable under these
facts is unsupported by the plain language of the directives
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Nammi Gohari was born prematurely on September 19, 2012,
and developed irreversible brain damage. Nammi's family attributed
Nammi’s condition to professional negligence on the part of medical staff at

facilities operated by petitioner Dignity Health. Over a decade after

Nammi’s birth, on November 30, 2022, real party in interest Saeed Gohari

 

 
(hereinafter Gohari), acting as Nammi’s guardian ad litem, filed medical
malpractice claims against Dignity Health and several individuals' who
provided medical care to Nammi's mother, Afsanch Amin-Akbari.

Dignity Health moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely
under NRS 414.097. NRS 41.097(2) provides, in relevant part, that “an
action for injury or death against a provider of health care may not be
commenced more than 3 years after the date of injury or J year after the
plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have
discovered the injury, whichever occurs first.” (Emphases added.) However,
NRS 41A.097(5) provides an exception to the limitations periods in NRS
414.097(2):

5. For the purposes of this section, the

parent, guardian or legal custodian of any minor

child is responsible for exercising reasonable

judgment in determining whether to prosecute any

cause of action limited by subsection 1, 2 or 3. If

the parent, guardian or custodian fails to

commence an action on behalf of that child within

the prescribed period of limitations, the child may

not bring an action based on the same alleged

injury against any provider of health care upon the

removal of the child's disability, except that in the

case of:

(a) Brain damage or birth defect, the period of

limitation is extended until the child attains 10

years of age.

*These include petitioners Liliana Ruiz-Leon, D.O., Timothy Sauter,
M.D., and Damon Masaki, M.D., who filed joinders in the instant writ

petition,

 

 
(Emphases added)? Given that Gohari’s claims pertain to Nammi’s brain
damage and/or birth defects and there is no dispute that Nammi's parent or
guardian did not previously bring a timely suit under NRS 41A.097(2), NRS.
41A.097(5) would foreseeably allow until Nammi’s 10th birthday
(September 19, 2022) for Gohari to file a complaint. However, Dignity
Health claimed the complaint was also untimely under NRS 414.0975)
because it was filed in November 2022, after Nammi’s 10th birthday.

Gohari opposed Dignity Health's motion to dismiss, arguing
that the complaint was still timely under NRS 41A.097(5) pursuant to a
pair of emergency directives issued by Governor Steve Sisolak during the
COVID-19 pandemic. On April 1, 2020, Governor Sisolak issued
Declaration of Emergency Directive 009 (Revised), which stated, in relevant
part, that

[ajny specific time limit set by state statute or
regulation for the commencement of any legal
action is hereby tolled from the date of this
Directive until 30 days from the date the state of
emergency declared on March 12, 2020 is
terminated.
(Emphases added.) On June 29, 2020, Governor Sisolak issued Declaration
of Emergency Directive 026, which ordered that “Directive 009 (Revised)

shall terminate on June 30, 2020 at 11:59 pm. Alll time tolled by Section 2

shall recommence effective July 31, 2020 at 11:59 pm.”

2We note that, prior to the 2023 legislative session, NRS 41A.097(6)'s
provisions were listed at NRS 41A.097(4) and contained identical language.
See 2023 Nev. Stat., ch. 493, § 3, at 3024, Because the proceedings below
took place and the instant writ petition was filed before this amendment
took effect on October 1, 2023, much of the record and briefing refers to NRS
41A.097(4)

 

 
The district court, reading Directives 009 and 026 together,
determined that the directives tolled the limitations period in NRS
41A.097(6) for 122 days (April 1 to August 1, 2020), such that Gohari’s
complaint was timely when filed on November 30, 2022, 72 days after
Nammi’s 10th birthday. Accordingly, the court denied Dignity Health’s
motion to dismiss. Dignity Health subsequently filed the instant petition
for a writ of mandamus, asking this court to vacate the district court order
and direct the district court to dismiss the case because Gohari's complaint
was untimely under NRS 414.097(6) and its timeliness was not preserved
by the directives.
DISCUSSION

We elect to entertain Dignity Health's petition, as we are
persuaded that it satisfies the circumstances under which this court may
consider a petition challenging a motion to dismiss. Int? Game Tech., Inc.
v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193, 197-98, 179 P.3d 556, 558-59 (2008);
see also Cervantes-Guevara v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 188 New. 87, 90, 505
P.3d 393, 397 (2022) (concluding that the applicability of the tolling
provisions within Directives 009 and 026 was “an important issue of law
requiring clarification [whose resolution] would] promote judicial
economy”). We are not persuaded, however, that Dignity Health is entitled
to the mandamus relief it seeks.

“A writ of mandamus is available [(1)] to compel the
performance of an act that the law requires as a duty resulting from an
office, trust, or station or [(2)] to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise
of discretion.” Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558 (footnote
omitted). Dignity Health argues that the tolling provisions of Directives

009 and 026, by their plain language and intent, apply only to actions where

the limitations period expired during the April 1 to August 1, 2020, tolling

 

 
om Ae

 

period and not where the statute of limitations expired sometime outside

this tolling period, as was the case with Gohari's complaint.3

  

This court applies “principles of statutory interpretation to
executive orders and directives.” Cervantes-Guevara, 138 Nev. at 91, 505
P.3d at 397. “When interpreting a statute, we look to its plain language.”
Id. (quoting Smith v. Zilverberg, 137 Nev. 65, 72, 481 P.3d 1222, 1230
(2021). Here, we see no support for Dignity Health’s argument in the
directives’ plain language. Directive 009 states that its tolling period
applies to “[a)ny specific time limit set by state statute or regulation for the
commencement of any legal action.” (Emphases added.) Dignity Health
fails to explain how this plainly broad, all-encompassing language supports
a narrow interpretation that the provision only pertains to actions with
deadlines falling within the tolling period. Indeed, itis difficult to see how
the time limit under NRS 41A.097(6) for Gohari to commence an action by

 

Nammi’s 10th birthday would fall outside Directive 009's expansive scope.
Furthermore, Directive 009 “tolled” limitations periods for “any legal
action,” a clear order that limitations periods for “any” pending legal action
stop running. See Toll, Black's Law Dictionary (11th ed. 2019). Directive
026 then recommenced the tolled limitations periods beginning August 1,
2020. Thus, the directives’ plain, unambiguous language supports the
district court’s conclusion that the directives tolled Gohari's limitations
period for 122 days without need for further analysis. See Smith, 137 Nev.

at 72, 481 P.3d at 1230 (‘If a statute's language is plain and unambiguous,

Dignity Health's petition alternatively argued that NRS 41A.097(5)
qualifies as a statute of repose, rather than a statute of limitations, such
that it cannot be tolled by the directives. However, Dignity Health
subsequently withdrew this argument in its reply in support of its petition.
‘Therefore, we do not consider this argument here

 
 

we enforce the statute as written, without resorting to the rules of
construction.").
CONCLUSION
In sum, we are not persuaded that the district court either
arbitrarily or capriciously abused its discretion by applying Directives 009
and 026 or that the law requires dismissal of Gohari’s complaint as
untimely, See Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558.

Accordingly, we deny the petition.

Parraguirre

We concur:

Abd . Jd.

Stiglich

Pati -
Pickering