IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

No. 83821 

ME 

APR 2 1 2022 

CASIANO R. FLAVIANO, M.D.; AND 

SUSHIL R. PATEL, M.D., 

Petitioners, 

vs. 

THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT 

COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, 

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF 

CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE BITA 

YEAGER, DISTRICT JUDGE, 

Respondents, 

and 

ARLIS NEASON, AS HEIR OF THE 

ESTATE OF JEFFREY NEASON; AND 

DIGNITY HEALTH MEDICAL GROUP 

NEVADA, LLC, A DOMESTIC 

LIMITED-LIABILITY COMPANY, 

Real Parties in Interest. 

ORDER DENYING PETITION 

FOR A 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 

079 I947A 4404D 
"A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of 

an act that the law requires . . . or to control an arbitrar

l

y or capricious 

exercise of discretion." Int'l 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 arid speedy legal 

remedy exists. Int'l Game Tech., 124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. A writ 

of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy, and whethei- a petition for 

extraordinary relief will be considered is solely within this court's 

discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Ne\;. 674, 677, 679, 

818 P.2d 849, 851, 853 (1991). 

An appeal from final judgment usually constitutes an adequate 

remedy at law. Int'l 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 

2 
Parraguirre 

treatment at issue rather than the defendant's area of practice or specific 

license). Accordingly, we 

ORDER the petition DENIED. 

Hardesty 

./414(11-11 

Stiglich 

cc: Hon. Bita Yeager, District Judge 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

McBride Hall 

Greenman Goldberg Raby & Martinez 

Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1447A 

3