Opinion ID: 2354594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: NRS 41A.071's affidavit requirement

Text: NRS 41A.071 states that medical malpractice actions filed without an accompanying affidavit supporting the allegations must be dismissed: [i]f 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. (Emphases added.) NRS 41A.071 imposes an affidavit requirement, which NRS 53.045 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, 258 (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: ... `I 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 `[t]he jurat is merely evidence that an oath was duly administered, and in the absence of a jurat the fact may be proved by evidence aliunde ' [6] and [t]he absence of a jurat on the affidavit did not invalidate the service on appellant. 199 Kan. 652, 433 P.2d 454, 458 (1967) (quoting James v. Logan, 82 Kan. 285, 108 P. 81, 81 (1910)). Similarly, in King v. State, the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas held that [t]he jurat is not part 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. 167 Tex.Crim. 440, 320 S.W.2d 677, 678 (App.1959) (internal citation omitted). We likewise conclude that if a litigant contests a medical expert's written statements accompanying a medical malpractice complaint based on the validity or lack of a jurat, the plaintiff may show by other evidence that the expert's statements were made under oath or constitute an unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury.