Title: MountainView Hosp. v. Nev. Dist. Court

State: nevada

Issuer: Nevada Supreme Court

Document:

428Nev, Advance Opinion |'7

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

MOUNTAINVIEW HOSPITAL, INC; | No. 57502
JASON E. GARBER, M.D. and JASON
/E. GARBER, M_D., LTD., |

Petitioners FILED
"HE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT .
COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 2052012
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF a en
LARK: AND THE HONORABLE
TEPANY MILEY, DISTRICT JUDGE,
Respondents,
and
URA REHFELDT; AND EDWARD
HHFELDT,
eal Parties in Interest.

 

 

 

 

Petition for writ of mandamus or prohibition challenging the
istrict court’s denial of a motion to dismiss a medical malpractice action,
Petition granted in part.

all Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, and John F. Bemis, Kenneth M.
‘ebster, and Michael T. Koptik, Las Vegas,
for Petitioner MountainView Hospital, Inc.

wis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, and Keith A. Weaver and Michael
Shannon, Las Vegas,
nr Petitioners Jason E. Garber, M.D.i and Jason E. Garber, M.D., Ltd.

toger P. Croteau & Associates, Ltd., and Roger P. Croteau and Timothy E.
thoda, Las Vegas,
for Real Parties in Interest.

 

12-1079

 

 
om

  
    
    
 
   
   
  
  
  

  
  

/BEFORE DOUGLAS, HARDESTY and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.

[By the Court, HARDESTY, J.:

In this petition for extraordinary writ relief, we are asked to
sider whether a plaintiff has complied with the affidavit requirement
jin a medical malpractice action when a medical expert's opinion letter
tached to the plaintiff's complaint does not include a jurat,! and there is
10 declaration from the medical expert in either the opinion letter or a
Inotary acknowledgment declaring that the statements contained in the
ypinion letter are made under penalty of perjury.

We conclude that the absence of a properly executed jurat does
jot render @ medical expert's written statement insufficient to meet the
ffidavit requirement of NRS 414.071, Because a jurat is merely evidence
that the medical expert swore under oath to the veracity of his or her
tatement before an officer authorized to administer oaths, it is clear that
ther evidence that the expert's written statement was made under oath
be offered to satisfy NRS 41A.071's affidavit requirement.

1A jurat is defined as “a declaration by a notarial officer that the
mer of a document signed the document in the presence of the notarial
fficer and swore to or affirmed that the statements in the document are
rrue.” NRS 240.0035

 
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Real parties in interest Laura and Edward Rehfeldt filed a
complaint for medical malpractice, among other claim!

 

, alleging that
Laura contracted a Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA)
and went into septic shock after undergoing elective back surgery at
MountainView Hospital, Because Laura tested negative for being
colonized with or a carrier for MRSA prior to the surgery, the Rehfeldts
asserted that petitioners MountainView Hospital, Jason E, Garber, M.D.
and Jason E, Garber, M.D., Ltd. (collectively, MountainView)? committed
medical malpractice by failing to provide a clean and sterile hospital
environment and failing to properly care for Laura.

Accompanying their complaint for medical malpractice, and at
issue in this case, was an opinion letter from Dr. Bernard T. McNamara
supporting the Rehfoldts’ claim, with a “California All-Purpose
Acknowledgment” form attached to the letter. Neither the opinion letter
nor the acknowledgment contained any statement that Dr. McNamara
swore under oath that the statements contained in his letter were true
and correct, and neither the opinion letter nor the acknowledgment
contained a declaration from Dr. McNamara declaring that his statements
were made under penalty of perjury. The acknowledgment was prepared
by a California notary public and stated as follows:

On 12/15/08 before me, Sandra Ferrer Notary
Public, personally appeared Bernard
McNamara, who proved to me on the basis of

 

2When necessary, we will separately refer to the hospital as
‘MountainView Hospital and to Jason E. Garber, M.D., and Jason E.
Garber, M.D., Ltd., collectively as Dr. Garber.

 

 
satisfactory evidence to be the person whose name
is subscribed to the within instrument and
acknowledged to me that he executed the same in
his authorized capacity and that by his signature
on the instrument the person, or the entity upon
behalf of which the person acted, executed the
instrument.

I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under
the laws of the State of California that the
foregoing paragraph is true and correct.

The notary public signed the acknowledgment and affixed her notary
stamp; however, Dr. McNamara signed only his letter. The Rehfeldts filed
an amended complaint attaching the same opinion letter from Dr.
McNamara and notary acknowledgment, and included a similar letter
from a nurse, Mary Wyckoff.)
Dr. Garber responded to the Rehfeldts’ amended complaint by
filing @ motion to dismiss, which MountainView Hospital joined. Dr.
jarber argued that NRS 41A.071 requires a supporting medical expert
affidavit to be attached to a medical malpractice complaint, and that Dr.
McNamara’s opinion letter and the notary acknowledgment failed to
satisfy that requirement. Without specifically discussing the statute's
affidavit requirement, the district court entered a written order
summarily denying Dr. Garber’s motion to dismiss.
‘The case was subsequently reassigned to a different
department in the district court, and MountainView Hospital filed a

8As neither MountainView nor the Rehfeldts have made any
arguments with regard to whether Wyckoff’s letter satisfied the affidavit
requirement, we refrain from addressing Wyckoff letter any further in
this opinion.

 

 
second motion to dismiss, reasserting Dr. Garber's argument that the
Rebfeldts failed to comply with the affidavit requirement of NRS 414.071,
Dr. Garber joined in the motion. According to MountainView Hospital, the
district court verbally denied its second motion at a hearing, “alleging that
[the previous judge] had already ruled that [the Rehfeldts'] letter from Dr.

‘McNamara was the equivalent of an affidavit.” However, a written order

 

 

denying MountainView Hospital’s second motion to dismiss was never

filed in the district court.! MountainView Hospital and Dr. Garber then

filed the instant petition for a writ of mandamus or prohibition.>

“Because the district court's oral order denying MountainView
Hospital’s motion to dismiss on the basis of NRS 41A.071I's affidavit
requirement deals with the procedural posture of the Rehfeldts’ case, we
conclude that it is ineffective and thus not subject to review by this court.
“[Dlispositional court orders that are not administrative in nature, but
deal with the procedural posture or merits of the underlying controversy,
must be written, signed, and filed before they become effective.” State,
Div. Child & Fam. Servs. v, Dist. Ct, 120 Nev. 445, 454, 92 P.3d 1239,
1245 (2004), Notwithstanding the district court's ineffective oral order on
MountainView’s second motion to dismiss, we hold that the issues raised
in MountainView’s writ petition are subject to review by this court, as the
district court did enter a written order denying Dr. Garber's motion to
dismiss, which MountainView Hospital joined, based on his contention
that the Rehfeldts failed to comply with NRS 414.071.

 

 

 

'MountainView also argues that the Rehfeldts’ failure to timely file
their answer to the petition for writ relief should be considered a
confession of error. We decline to do so. This court directed the Rehfeldts
to file an answer to the petition, and, pursuant to a stipulation between
the parties to extend the filing deadline, this court ordered the answer
filed on March 11, 2011, only 3 days after the extended filing deadline.
Furthermore, MountainView fails to allege or demonstrate any prejudice
resulting from the delay. See Carson City v, Price, 113 Nev. 409, 411 n.1,
934 P.2d 1042, 1043 n.1 (1997) (denying respondents’ motion to dismiss
based on appellants’ one-day tardiness in filing their opening brief because

continued on next page .

 

 
DISCUSSION

‘This court has original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus
and prohibition. Nev. Const, art. 6, § 4. Whether extraordinary writ relief
will issue is solely within this court's discretion. Walters v. Dist. Ct.. 127
Nev. __, _, 263 P.8d 231, 283 (2011). “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 a manifest abuse of
discretion.” We the People Nevada v. Secretary of State, 124 Nev. 874,
879, 192 P.3d 1166, 1170 (2008); NRS 34.160. “A writ of prohibition... is
available when a district court acts without or in exce:
International Game Tech, v. Dist. Ct,, 122 Nev, 132, 142, 127 P.3d 1088,
1096 (2006); NRS 34.320. Generally, an extraordinary writ may only be

of its jurisdiction.”

 

issued in cases “where there is not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy”
at law. NRS 34.170; NRS 34.330. In addition, consideration of

extraordinary writ relief is often justified “where an important issue of
law needs clarification and public policy is served by this court's
invocation of its original jurisdiction.” Mineral County v. State, Dep't of
Conserv,, 117 Nev. 235, 243, 20 P.8d 800, 805 (2001) (quoting Business
Computer Rentals v, State Treas., 114 Nev. 63, 67, 953 P.2d 13, 15 (1998));
see also International Game Tech., 122 Nev. at 142-43, 127 P.3d at 1096

 

continued

“respondents have not alleged or shown that they suffered any prejudice
as a result of this delay”). Finally, MountainView’s request to strike the
Rehfeldts’ answer does not warrant consideration as MountainView failed
to file the appropriate motion before this court and provide the Rehfeldts
with an opportunity to respond. See NRAP 27.

 

 
(consideration of writ relief is appropriate where “petitions raise
important issues of law in need of clarification, involving significant public
policy concerns, of which this court’s review would promote sound judicial
economy”). However, “[nJormally, this court will not entertain a writ
petition challenging the denial of a motion to dismiss but... may do so
where... the issue is not fact-bound and involves an unsettled and
potentially significant, recurring question of law.” Buckwalter v, Dist, Ct.
126 Nev. _, _, 284 P.8d 920, 921 (2010).

In this case, MountainView argues that the district court

erred in denying the motion to dismiss after ruling that Dr. McNamara’s

 

opinion letter and the attached acknowledgment met NRS 41A.071'
affidavit requirement, Because this petition for extraordinary writ relief
presents an issue of first impression in Nevada and involves an unsettled
and potentially significant, recurring question of law concerning the
satisfaction of NRS 41A.071’s affidavit requirement for a medical
malpractice cause of action, we exercise our discretion to consider
‘MountainView’s petition for writ of mandamus.
NRS 41A.071's affidavit requirement

NRS 414.071 states that medical malpractice actions filed
without an accompanying affidavit supporting the allegations must be
dismissed:

[ilf an action for medical malpractice ... is filed in
the district court, the district court shall dismiss
the action, without prejudice, if the action is filed
without _an_affidavit, supporting the allegations
contained in the action, submitted by a medical
expert who practices or has practiced in an area
that is substantially similar to the type of practice
‘engaged in at the time of the alleged malpractice

 

 
7

(Emphases added.) °NRS 41A.071 imposes an affidavit requirement,
which NRS 63.045 permits a litigant to meet either by sworn affidavit or
unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury.” Buckwalter, 126
Nev. at __, 234 P.3d at 922.

 

“An affidavit is a written statement ‘sworn to by the declarant
before an officer authorized to administer oaths.” Id. at __. 234 P.3d at
921 (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 66 (9th ed. 2009), To prove that an
affidavit was made under oath, it typically includes a jurat. See Lutz v.
Kinney, 23 Nev. 279, 282, 46 P. 257, 268 (1896) (‘[T]he ‘jurat{]’ is
essential, not as a part of the affidavit, but as official evidence that the
oath was taken before the proper officer.”), Alternatively, an unsworn
declaration made under penalty of perjury is a written statement included
in a document declaring the existence or truth of a matter, which is
“signed by the declarant under penalty of perjury, and dated, in
substantially the following form: ...'T declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is true and correct.” NRS 53.045(1).

Here, Dr. McNamara’s opinion letter and accompanying
notary acknowledgment lack the traditional jurat. Whether an expert's
written statements satisfy NRS 41A.071's affidavit requirement in the
absence of a properly executed jurat is a matter of first impression in
Nevada. Other jurisdictions have concluded that the problems raised by
an absent or defective jurat can be overcome by other evidence. In
American Home Life Insurance Company v. Heide, the Supreme Court of
Kansas held that “[tJhe jurat is merely evidence that an oath was duly
administered, and in the absence of a jurat the fact may be proved by

 

 
   
   
 
  
    
   
 
 
   
   
   
   
  
  

Jevidence aliunde,”* and “[tJhe absence of a jurat on the affidavit did not
invalidate the service on appellant.” 483 P.2d 454, 458 (Kan. 1967)
|(quoting James v, Logan, 108 P. 81, 81 (Kan, 1910). Similarly, in King v.
IState, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that “[t]he jurat is not
Jpart of the affidavit, ... When the jurat on its face is defective, the fact
that it was properly sworn to may be shown by other evidence.” 320
Is. W.2d 677, 678 (Tex. Crim. App. 1959) (internal citation omitted). We
Hikewise conclude that if a litigant contests a medical expert's written
lotatements accompanying a medical malpractice complaint based on the
alidity or lack of a jurat, the plaintiff may show by other evidence that
;he expert's statements were made under oath or constitute an unsworn,

leclaration made under penalty of perjury.

\e Rehfoldts’ compliance with NRS 41A,071

MountainView argues that the district court erred by denying
Dr. Garber's motion to dismiss because, without a sworn affidavit or an
nsworn declaration, there is no evidence that Dr. McNamara took an
ith and swore to the truthfulness of his statements under penalty of
srjury. In response, the Rehfeldts contend that Dr. McNamara’s letter
ind accompanying acknowledgment constitute a sworn affidavit because
(a) it is a written declaration made voluntarily: (b) it was confirmed by
ith: and (c) it was made before @ person having authority to administer
such an oath.”

NRS 240,002 defines “[alcknowledgment” in part as “a
jeclaration by a person that he or she has executed an instrument for the

“Evidence aliunde is defined as “[elvidence from outside, from

nother source.” Black's Law Dictionary 73 (6th ed. 1990).

 

 

   

 
purposes stated therein.” By its definition, an acknowledgment does not
validate that the person executing the instrument swears or affirms that
the statements in the instrument are true and correct or that the
statements were made under penalty of perjury.

Only the notary public signed the acknowledgment, and she
simply acknowledged that Dr. McNamara was the person who signed the
letter. The acknowledgment does not contain any statement that Dr.
McNamara “swore to or affirmed that the statements in the document are
true,” NRS 240.0035; Buckwalter, 126 Nev. at _, 234 P.3d at 921. Thus,

based upon the record, we cannot conclude that Dr. MeNamari

 

opinion

 

lotter constitutes an affidavit.” In addition, the notary acknowledgment in
this case does not satisfy NRS 414.071.

Notwithstanding the omission of a jurat, however, the
Rehfeldts may be able to demonstrate compliance with NRS 41A.071's
affidavit requirement through other evidence. Under our holding today,
the Rehfeldts should be permitted to show that Dr. McNamara appeared
before the notary public and swore under oath that the statements
contained in the letter were true and correct. The Rehfeldts did submit a
declaration to this court signed by Dr. McNamara in which he states that

he appeared before the notary public and swore under oath that the

TUpon review of the record, we also conclude that the Rehfeldts
cannot satisfy NRS 41.071 by unsworn declaration because neither the
opinion letter nor the acknowledgment included such a declaration. See
Washoe Medical Center v. District Court, 122 Nev. 1298, 1300, 148 P.3d
790, 792 (2006) (concluding that failure to satisfy the affidavit
requirement of NRS 414.071 results in the complaint becoming void ab
initio and explaining that a void complaint cannot be amended).

 

 
   
 
  
  
   
   
   
   
   
   
  
   
     

Jopinions in his letter were true and correct and that he signed his letter
|-under oath and under penalty of perjury.” But this declaration was never
Jpresented to the district court for its consideration, and neither
|MountainView Hospital nor Dr. Garber were provided an opportunity to
lcontest the declaration.®

Accordingly, we grant MountainView’s petition for
Jextraordinary relief in part and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ
f mandamus instructing the district court to conduct an evidentiary
hearing for the limited purpose of determining whether the Rebfeldts ean
Jufficiently prove that Dr, McNamara appeared before the notary public
ind swore under oath that the

 

tements contained in his opinion letter

 

jere true and correct. If, after conducting the evidentiary hearing, the
istrict court concludes that the Rebfoldts failed to comply with NRS

1A.071's affidavit requirement, the Rehfeldts’ claim for medical

"There is no indication in the record before us that Dr. McNamara’s
ieclaration was ever presented to the district court. See In re AMERCO.
rrivative Litigation, 127 Nev.__, _n.6, 252 P.3d 681, 697 n.6 (2011)
"{Wle decline to address an issue raised for the first time on appeal.”).

"Based on our holding today, we deny MountainView’s alternative
.quest for a writ of prohibition.

 
  

malpractice must be dismissed as void ab initio. See Washoe Medical
Center, 122 Nev. at 1300, 148 P.3d at 792.