Court Opinion

ID: 9948843
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-08 00:09:25.446982+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:26:05.549333
License: Public Domain

140 Nev., Advance Opinion 1
                         IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEVADA

                   CHRISTOPHER L. IGTIBEN, M.D.;                      No, 86567-COA
                   DIGNITY HEALTH, d/b/a ST. ROSE
                   DOMINICAN HOSPITAL-SAN MARTIN
                   CAMPUS; DIGNITY HEALTH
                   MEDICAL GROUP NEVADA, LLC; AND
                                                                           FMB
                   DIGNITY HEALTH HOLDING
                   CORPORATION,
                   Petitioners,
                   vs.
                   THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
                   COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA,
                   IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF
                   CLARK; AND THE HONORABLE
                   KATHLEEN E. DELANEY, DISTRICT
                   JUDGE,
                   Respondents,
                   and
                   LINDA F. SMITH; THE ESTATE OF
                   KAMARIO MANTRELL SMITH;
                   EDWARD GAXIOLA PONS; LATOYA
                   NICHOLE TURNER; K.M.S.;
                   LAWANDA DENISE HARRIS; K.A.S.;
                   AND K.A.S.,
                   Real Parties in Interest.

                              Original petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a district
                   court order denying a rnotion to dismiss a complaint in a professional
                   negligence and wrongful death action.
                              Petition granted.

                   John H. Cotton & Associates, Ltd., and Adam Schneider and John H.
                   Cotton, Las Vegas,
                   for Petitioner Christopher L. Igtiben, M.D.

COURT OF APPEALS
         OF
      NEVADA
                                                                           2.44- 0 b 331
( 01 1947S
                   Hutchison & Steffen, PLLC, and Courtney Christopher and Brittany A.
                   Lewis, Las Vegas,
                   for Petitioners Dignity Health, d/b/a St. Rose Dominican Hospital-San
                   Martin Campus; Dignity Health Medical Group Nevada, LLC; and Dignity
                   Health Holding Corporation.

                   Gallian Welker & Associates, L.C., and Nathan E. Lawrence, Michael I.
                   Welker, and Travis N. Barrick, Las Vegas,
                   for Real Parties in Interest.

                   BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS, GIBBONS, C.J., and BULLA and
                   WESTBROOK, JJ.

                                                   OPINION

                   By the Court, BULLA, J.:
                               In this original writ proceeding, we take the opportunity to
                   address the accrual date of professional negligence and wrongful death

                   claims under the applicable statute of limitations, NRS 41A.097(2).' We
                   emphasize that, unless there is an impediment to pursuing an action such
                   as the concealment of medical records, once the plaintiff or the plaintiffs
                   representative has received all necessary medical records documenting the
                   relevant treatment and care at issue, inquiry notice of a claim commences.
                   Here, real parties in interest were placed on inquiry notice when they
                   received the decedent's medical records of Christopher Igtiben, M.D.'s
                   treatment, which were in fact subsequently utilized by their expert to

                         'We originally resolved this petition in an unpublished order granting
                   the petition and issuing a writ of mandamus. Petitioners subsequently filed
                   a motion to publish the order as an opinion. We grant the motion and
                   replace our earlier order with this opinion. See NRAP 36(f).
COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
      NEVADA
                                                        2
(0) 194711
                   prepare his affidavit of merit. Because real parties in interest did not file
                   their complaint until after the pertinent statute of limitations expired, the
                   district court erred in failing to disrniss the complaint and writ relief is
                   warranted.
                                   FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
                                Kamario Mantrell Smith, an inmate, collapsed twice in prison,
                   three weeks after an unsuccessful heart surgery. Following his second
                   collapse, Kamario was transported to the San Martin Campus of St. Rose
                   Dominican Hospital (San Martin), where he was admitted for shortness of
                   breath, chest pains, and a rapid heart rate. On admission, it was believed
                   that Kamario had sickle cell trait (SCT), and a peripheral blood smear test
                   showed that Kamario's blood contained sickled cells.2           Shortly after,
                   petitioner Dr. Igtiben, an internal medicine hospitalist, ordered a contrast
                   CT angiograph of Kamario's chest, abdomen, and pelvis, which detected a
                   blood clot in his lung, an enlarged heart, fluid in his chest, and bilateral
                   pneumonia.     Kamario was placed on an anticoagulant, which initially

                         A peripheral blood smear test provides health care providers with a
                         2
                   microscopic view of red and white blood cells and platelets; while results
                   from a peripheral smear test are not diagnostic, they may be used to assist
                   health care providers in making diagnoses. Peripheral Blood Smear,
                   Cleveland Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/22742-
                   peripheral-blood-smear-test (last visited Feb. 1, 2024).
                          A person with SCT carries the sickle cell gene but generally
                   experiences no complications from the condition. Questions and Answers
                   About Sickle Cell Trait, Nat'l Heart, Lung, and Blood Inst. (Sept. 22,
                   2010), https://www . nhlbi. nih.gov/news/2010/questions-and-answers- about-
                   sickle-cell-trait. In contrast, individuals with sickle cell anemia (also known
                   as sickle cell disease or SCD) have low hemoglobin levels and their red blood
                   cells become misshapen and take on the sickle shape. Id. Over time, sickle
                   cell anemia can cause damage to organs, including the brain, bones, lungs,
                   kidneys, liver, and heart. Id.
COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                         3
(0) 19478
                   stabilized him. However, the next day, his hemoglobin decreased, and he
                   became hypotensive. Kamario rapidly lost kidney function and experienced
                   renal failure. At this time, a diagnostic hemoglobin electrophoresis test
                   confirmed Kamario had sickle cell anemia, rather than SCT.3           The next
                   morning, November 25, 2019, Karnario's heart stopped, and resuscitation
                   efforts were unsuccessful.
                               On January 6, 2020, following Kamario's death, Kamario's
                   mother, real party in interest Linda F. Smith (RPII), received his medical
                   records from San Martin, which documented all the treatment and care
                   provided by Dr. Igtiben at issue here. RPII also obtained a copy of the death
                   certificate at some point, as evidenced by her attaching it to her May 12,
                   2020, probate filings. The death certificate listed the cause of death as
                    pulmonary infarction caused by a pulmonary embolism," with other
                   significant conditions listed as "acute renal [kidney] failure, [SCT],
                   hypertension and recurrent atrial fibrillation and atrial flutter." Although
                   not included in the record, the parties agree that the autopsy report notated
                   Kamario's manner of death to be "natural."
                               At the time of his death, Kamario had a civil rights action
                   pending against the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC) in federal
                   court, alleging NDOC's ongoing and continuing failure to properly treat or
                   accommodate his atrial fibrillation and irregular heartbeat. On April 2,
                   2020, RPII moved to substitute in for Kamario as a party in the federal case.

                         3"Hemoglobin    electrophoresis uses electrical charges to separate
                   hemoglobin types so healthcare providers can compare the level of each
                   type with normal levels."           Hemoglobin Electrophoresis, Cleveland
                   Clinic, https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/22420-hemoglobin-
                   electrophoresis (last visited Feb. 1, 2024). This test is used to diagnose blood
                   diseases such as sickle cell anemia. Id.
COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                          4
(01 1947B
                   In the handwritten motion, RP1I wrote, "I understand; I have to submit my
                   Negligence Claini[ ] of Kamario Smith[s] Death. I understand that I need
                   to pursue thern in state court." At or near this time, RPII retained counsel
                   to assist her, and on April 20, the federal court granted her motion to
                   substitute in as a party.
                               In May 2020, the probate court in the Eighth Judicial District
                   appointed RPII as special administrator of Kamario's estate. RPII listed
                   the assets of the estate as consisting solely of two lawsuits: the above-
                   mentioned civil rights lawsuit in federal court and a prospective wrongful
                   death claim to be purportedly brought against NDOC either in the ongoing
                   federal action or in state court.
                               Around September 2021, in relation to the federal lawsuit, RPII
                   retained Lary Simms, D.O., a pathologist, to review Kamario's medical
                   records.4 In February 2022, Dr. Simms opined that Kamario's death was
                   caused by exposure to the intravenous contrast Dr. Igtiben had ordered for
                   the CT scan, which caused kidney failure due to Karnario's sickle cell
                   anemia.5 Approximately eight nionths later, on November 22, 2022, RPII
                   filed a complaint in the Eighth Judicial District on behalf of Kamario's
                   estate against petitioners Dignity Heath, d/b/a San Martin; Dignity Health
                   Medical Group Nevada, LLC; Dignity Health Holding Corporation; and Dr.
                   Igtiben, alleging professional negligence of a health care provider and

                         The federal suit remained active until it apparently settled in or
                         4
                   about February 2022.
                         5An intravenous contrast is an iodine-based medium injected into an
                   individual's body to increase the density of blood, which allows for blood
                   vessels to be viewed during a CT exam. David C. Rodgers & Prassana Tadi,
                   Intravenous Contrast, Nat'l Library of Med., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
                   books/NBK557794/ (last updated Mar. 13, 2023).
COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                        5
(0) 194711
                   wrongful death. The complaint, which was supported by a declaration of
                   merit by Dr. Simms, alleged that Dr. Igtiben's actions, as well as those of

                   other petitioners, fell below the standard of care in failing to recognize that
                   Kamario suffered from sickle cell anemia before ordering a CT with
                   contrast, which ultimately caused Kainario's kidneys to fail, resulting in his

                   death.
                                  Dr. Igtiben moved to dismiss RPII's complaint, arguing in part
                   that, pursuant to NRS 41A.097(2), the statute of limitations on RPII's
                   claims had expired. The other petitioners joined in the motion to dismiss.
                   The district court denied the motion, stating in part that a finder of fact
                   could determine that the one-year statute of limitations under NRS
                   41A.097(2) did not begin to run until February 2022 when Dr. Simms
                   formed his opinions.      Subsequently, Dr. Igtiben filed the instant writ
                   petition challenging the district court's order denying dismissal of the
                   complaint against him. Dignity Health, d/b/a San Martin; Dignity Health
                   Medical Group Nevada, LLC; and Dignity Health Holding Corporation
                   joined as petitioners.
                                                     ANALYSIS
                                  A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of
                   an act that the law requires or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise
                   of discretion. Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Jud. Dist. Ct., 124 Nev. 193,
                   197, 179, P.3d 556, 558 (2008). This extraordinary relief may be available
                   if the petitioner does not have a plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
                   ordinary course of law. NRS 34.170; see also Srnith v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.,
                   107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991) (recognizing that whether a
                   writ of mandamus will be considered is within the appellate court's sole
                   discretion).

COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                          6
(0) 1947R
                               Generally, this court will not consider a writ petition
                   challenging an order denying a motion to dismiss because an appeal from a
                   final judgment is an adequate and speedy legal remedy. Int'l Game Tech.,
                   124 Nev. at 197, 179 P.3d at 558. However, we will consider petitions that
                   challenge orders denying motions to dismiss if"either (1) no factual dispute
                   exists and the district court is obligated to dismiss an action pursuant to
                   clear authority under a statute or rule, or (2) an important issue of law
                   needs clarification and considerations of sound judicial economy and
                   administration rnilitate in favor of granting the petition." Id. at 197-98, 179
                   P.3d at 559. Because the facts relevant to the statute of limitations are not
                   in dispute, and because the district court was obligated to dismiss the action
                   pursuant to NRS 41A.097(2), we elect to exercise our discretion and
                   entertain this writ petition.
                               NRS 41A.097(2) governs the limitations periods for professional
                   negligence claims, stating in relevant part that "an action for injury or death
                   against a provider of health care may not be commenced more than 3 years
                   after the date of the injury or 1 year after the plaintiff discovers or through
                   use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever
                   occurs first."6 (Emphasis added.) We recognize that, here, RPII's complaint
                   was filed prior to the expiration of the three-year statutory period, but
                   petitioners argue that the complaint was nonetheless barred by the earlier
                   expiration of the one-year inquiry-notice limitations period.

                         °Recent amendments to NRS 41A.097 extend the statute of
                   limitations for "injury to or wrongful death of a person" claims to two years
                   after the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury, but only
                   for those claims arising on or after October 1, 2023. See NRS 41A.097(2)-
                   (3) (2023). As the claims here arose before October 1, 2023, these
                   arnendments do not affect our analysis.
COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
      NEVADA
                                                          7
(<)) 1947N
                               The accrual date for NRS 41A.097(2)'s one-year limitations
                   period is generally a question of fact that must be decided by a jury:
                   however, courts may determine the date as a matter of law when the

                   evidence irrefutably shows the plaintiff was placed on inquiry notice of a
                   potential claim. Winn v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 128 Nev. 246, 251-52,
                   277 P.3d 458, 462 (2012). "A plaintiff discovers [their] injury when [they]
                   know[] or, through the use of reasonable diligence, should have known of
                   facts that would put a reasonable person on inquiry notice of [their] cause
                   of action." Id. at 252, 277 P.3d at 462 (quoting Massey v. Litton, 99 Nev.
                   723, 728, 669 P.2d 248, 252 (1983)) (internal citation omitted). The Nevada
                   Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff is placed on inquiry notice of
                   potential claims for medical malpractice when they receive all relevant
                   medical records because the plaintiff then has "access to facts that would
                   have led an ordinarily prudent person to investigate further into whether
                   [the patient's] injury may have been caused by someone's negligence." Id.
                   at 253-54, 277 P.3d at 463; see also Kushnir v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 137
                   Nev. 409, 410, 495 P.3d 137, 139 (Ct. App. 2021) ("Because the plaintiffs
                   had all necessary medical records and were therefore on inquiry notice of
                   the claim more than a year before filing the complaint, . . . we conclude that
                   the one-year statute of limitations expired and extraordinary writ relief is
                   appropriate.").
                               In this case, the district court erred in denying Dr. Igtiben's
                   motion to dismiss, as it is undisputed that RPII received the relevant
                   medical records in January 2020—placing her on inquiry notice of potential

                   professional negligence and wrongful death claims against Dr. Igtiben at

COURT OF APPEALS
         OF
      NEVADA
                                                         8
(0) I 94711
                   that tirne.7 See Kushnir. 137 Nev. at 412-13, 495 P.3d at 141. Therefore, as
                   of January 6, 2020, RPII had access to facts that would have led an
                   ordinarily prudent person to investigate whether Dr. Igtiben's treatment

                   and care led to Kamario's death.          Indeed, RPII appears to have
                   acknowledged that such claims may have existed as early as 2020 in the

                   federal and probate actions. As a result, pursuant to NRS 41A.097(2), RPII
                   was required to file any professional negligence or wrongful death action

                   within one year from the date she received the medical records. RPII did
                   not file the present action until November 22, 2022, or approximately two
                   years and ten months later, well outside of the one-year statute of
                   limitations based on inquiry notice.8    Therefore, the applicable statute of

                   limitations had long since expired when RPII filed her complaint for

                         7 Because we conclude that the medical records provided RPII the
                   information necessary to place her on inquiry notice regarding alleged
                   deficiencies in Dr. Igtiben's treatment and trigger NRS 41A.097(2)'s
                   limitations period, the fact that she may have received Kamario's death
                   certificate and the autopsy report after receiving the medical records does
                   not change our decision. We note that the record before us is not clear about
                   when RPII received the January 8 death certificate, although it was
                   attached to the probate filings in May 2020, or the autopsy report, which is
                   not contained in the record.

                         8We note RPII conceded at oral argument that no impediment
                   prevented Dr. Simms from reviewing the case earlier than September 2021.
                   By way of example, RPII neither raised, nor do we consider, whether the
                   statute of limitations was tolled due to concealment. See NRS 41A.097(3)
                   (discussing tolling due to concealment); Senjab v. Alhulaibi, 137 Nev. 632,
                   633-34, 497 P.3d 618, 619 (2021) (stating that appellate courts will not
                   supply an argument on a party's behalf).
COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                        9
(0) 19478
                   professional negligence in state court on November 22, 2022, and the
                   district court should have dismissed the complaint as untimely.°
                                                  CONCLUSION
                               After receiving medical records sufficient to place RPII on
                   inquiry notice of potential professional negligence claims, she failed to file
                   the complaint within the statute of limitations.          As there was no
                   impediment to RPII filing suit before the statute of limitations expired, the
                   district court was required to dismiss her complaint as untimely. Because
                   the district court failed to dismiss the complaint, we grant the petition and
                   direct the clerk of this court to issue a writ of mandamus instructing the

                         °As we conclude that we must grant writ relief and direct the district
                   court to dismiss the complaint because the relevant statute of limitations
                   has expired, we need not consider Dr. Igtiben's alternative basis for
                   dismissal, wherein he asserts that the affidavit of merit attached to the
                   complaint failed to satisfy NRS 41A.071. See Wheble v. Eighth Jud. Dist.
                   Ct., 128 Nev. 119, 1223 n.2, 272 P.3d 134, 1337 n.2 (2012) (declining to
                   consider the petitioner's alternative bases for writ relief because the court
                   granted writ relief and directed the district court to dismiss a complaint due
                   to the statute of limitations having expired).

                         Nevertheless, we encourage the Legislature to consider clarifying the
                   ambiguity in NRS 41A.071(2) as to when a physician must have practiced
                   in the same or substantially similar area of practice in relation to the
                   alleged professional negligence at issue in order to provide an affidavit or
                   declaration of merit setting forth opinions regarding that negligence.
                   Currently, no specific time frame is set forth in the statute. In this case, we
                   note that Dr. Simms had not practiced as a hospitalist, Dr. Igtiben's practice
                   area, for over 30 years when he submitted his affidavit of merit opining as
                   to the appropriate standard of care governing Dr. Igtiben's treatment.
COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                         10
(0) 1947E
                   district court to vacate its order denying petitioners' motion to dismiss and
                   to dismiss the underlying complaint as untimely under NRS 41A.097(2).

                                                               ift,"•°""*•••■ft....   J.
                                                      Bulla

                   We concur:

                                                   C.J.
                      / "--1
                   Gibbons

                   Westbrook

COURT OF APPEALS
        OF
     NEVADA
                                                          11
(0) 1947B