Opinion ID: 1033508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: conclusion

Text: For the foregoing reasons, we reverse that portion of the district court's July 2010 order holding that Bielar assigned her rights to Great West and that she was ineligible for the billing discount under NRS 439B.260(1)(a), and we remand this matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. However, because we conclude that Bielar failed to sufficiently prove the unreasonableness of Washoe Medical's charges for medical services and goods rendered, we affirm the district court's February 2011 order granting Washoe Medical's NRCP 50(a)(1) 7 The district court also found that Bielar presented insufficient evidence showing that the amounts Washoe Medical actually billed Bielar were unreasonable. Bielar argues, for the first time in her reply brief, that this finding was also in error. We decline to consider this argument. See Francis v. Wynn Las Vegas, L.L.C., 127 Nev. , n.7, 262 P.3d 705, 715 n.7 (2011) (citing Weaver v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 121 Nev. 494, 502, 117 P.3d 193, 198-99 (2005)) ([A]rguments raised for the first time in an appellant's reply brief need not be considered.). Bielar also argues that the district court misapplied NRS Chapter 108 in deciding to grant Washoe Medical's NRCP 50(a)(1) motion; however, we conclude that this argument is meritless because the district court did not grant the motion based upon those grounds. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 19 (0) 1947A motion, with the exception that Bielar is entitled to recover the $3,801.23 Washoe Medical conceded at trial that it overbilled Bielar. 8 / J. Hardesty We concur: C.J. J. 8 In the concluding paragraph of her opening brief, Bielar requests that if this matter is remanded, that it be reassigned to another district court judge because Judge Flanagan's refusal to follow this court's directives and his improper granting of Washoe Medical's NRCP 50(a)(1) motion exhibit[ed] a 'probability of bias,' which. . . implicates due process considerations. We reject this request. Although we have concluded that the district court improperly granted Washoe Medical's motion, the record reflects that Judge Flanagan's decisions were unbiased, well-reasoned, and thorough. Thus, Bielar has failed to demonstrate any impartiality or impropriety on the part of Judge Flanagan, or show that her due process rights were violated. See NCJC Canon 1, Rule 1.2 (A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.); see also Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 556 U.S. 868, 876 (2009) (It is axiomatic that [a] fair trial in a fair tribunal is a basic requirement of due process. As the Court has recognized, however, most matters relating to judicial disqualification [do] not rise to a constitutional level. (alterations in original) (citation and internal quotations omitted)). 20