Opinion ID: 2354594
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: The Rehfeldts' compliance with NRS 41A.071

Text: MountainView argues that the district court erred by denying Dr. Garber's motion to dismiss because, without a sworn affidavit or an unsworn declaration, there is no evidence that Dr. McNamara took an oath and swore to the truthfulness of his statements under penalty of perjury. In response, the Rehfeldts contend that Dr. McNamara's letter and accompanying acknowledgment constitute a sworn affidavit because (a) it is a written declaration made voluntarily; (b) it was confirmed by oath; and (c) it was made before a person having authority to administer such an oath. NRS 240.002 defines [a]cknowledgment in part as a declaration by a person that he or she has executed an instrument for the 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. McNamara's opinion letter constitutes an affidavit. [7] In addition, the notary acknowledgment in this case does not satisfy NRS 41A.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 opinions 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 presented to the district court for its consideration, and neither MountainView Hospital nor Dr. Garber were provided an opportunity to contest the declaration. [8] Accordingly, we grant MountainView's petition for extraordinary relief in part and direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing for the limited purpose of determining whether the Rehfeldts can sufficiently prove that Dr. McNamara appeared before the notary public and swore under oath that the statements contained in his opinion letter were true and correct. [9] If, after conducting the evidentiary hearing, the district court concludes that the Rehfeldts failed to comply with NRS 41A.071's affidavit requirement, the Rehfeldts' claim for medical malpractice must be dismissed as void ab initio. See Washoe Medical Center, 122 Nev. at 1300, 148 P.3d at 792. We concur: DOUGLAS and PARRAGUIRRE, JJ.