Court Opinion

ID: 9797817
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 04:29:54.488637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:57:54.801411
License: Public Domain

Rose, J.,
concurring:
I initially applied DeJesus v. Flick.1 to the facts of this case, as I felt obligated to do.2 In doing so, I determined that the attorney misconduct here is similar to that cited in DeJesus J, 3 and under the DeJesus standard, the damages here are clearly excessive when compared to the proven injuries.4 Therefore, I felt that the entire judgment should be reversed, as we are now voting to do on a different basis on rehearing.
*198However, in applying the DeJesus test, one aspect of it presented a major problem — the search for an objective standard in determining whether damages were appropriate or excessive. The DeJesus majority used the medical expenses to gauge whether the damages for pain and suffering and permanent injury were excessive.5 But great damages can result from an injury that requires minimal medical expenses — as is often the case with mild to moderate brain injuries. We are attempting to apply some objective standard to injuries that are proven largely by subjective testimony. If we are to continue with the DeJesus analysis, I would eliminate the “objectively reasonable” standard6 when reviewing damages, and instead, review the damages awarded to see if substantial evidence supports their award.7
The concurrence of Chief Justice Maupin on rehearing voices his agreement with the rule suggested by the dissenters in the original DeJesus decision. Notwithstanding my views stated in this case in attempting to follow the DeJesus precedent, my preference would be to abandon the DeJesus standard and adopt the rule three justices urged in the DeJesus dissent8 and that is supported in this concurrence.

 116 Nev. 812, 7 P.3d 459 (2000).

 Canterino v. The Mirage Casino-Hotel, 117 Nev. 19, 30, 16 P.3d 415, 422 (2001) (Rose, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 See DeJesus, 116 Nev. at 817-19, 7 P.3d at 463-64.

 Canterino, 117 Nev. at 30-33, 16 P.3d at 422-24 (Rose, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).

 DeJesus, 116 Nev. at 820 & n.5, 7 P.3d at 464-65 & n.5.

 See id. at 820, 7 P.3d at 464-65.

 See id. at 828, 7 P.3d at 467 (Rose, C. J., dissenting).

 See id. at 823-28, 7 P.3d at 466-70 (Rose, C. J., dissenting).