In a recent ruling, the Nevada Court of Appeals delivered an important decision in the case of Igtiben v. The Eighth Judicial Dist. Court of the State of Nev., No. 86567-COA (Nev. App. Dec. 21, 2023) shedding light on the significance of medical records in medical malpractice claims. The case centered around a prisoner who passed away in a hospital after receiving medical treatment. This ruling has far-reaching implications for professionals involved in the defense of medical malpractice claims in Nevada, emphasizing the critical role of thorough medical record examination in triggering inquiry notice.
Background of the Case
The case of Igtiben v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. involved a prisoner who was transported to a hospital for medical treatment and subsequently died. The family of the deceased obtained his complete hospital medical chart six weeks after his death. Fourteen months later, a forensic pathologist hired by the family concluded that professional negligence contributed to the prisoner's death. The family then filed a lawsuit eight months after receiving the pathologist's report.
The Argument and Ruling
The hospital and physician named in the lawsuit moved to dismiss the case, contending that the family's one-year statute of limitations had expired. However, the district court denied the motion, ruling that a genuine issue of material fact existed because the lawsuit was filed within eight months of the pathologist's report.
The Nevada Court of Appeals, in its reversal of the district court's decision, directed dismissal of the complaint. The court emphasized that in Nevada the trigger for inquiry notice in potential medical malpractice cases occurs when the plaintiff(s) or their representative receives "all relevant medical records." In the Igtiben case, the only relevant medical records were those held by the hospital which the family had access to just six weeks after the death. The date when the forensic pathologist provided his report was deemed irrelevant.
The Statute
NRS 41A.097(2) sets forth the statute of limitations for professional negligence claims. It states in relevant part, "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." 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).
In addition, the Nevada Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue and found that a plaintiff is placed on inquiry notice for potential malpractice claims at the point they have received all relevant medical records. The high court stated a reasonable person would investigate further at that point if they had any suspicion of wrongdoing by a medical professional. Id. at 463.
In the current case, the plaintiffs obtained the medical records at issue in January 2020, which placed them on inquiry notice at the time of receipt. Further, the plaintiffs had hinted at a possible negligence claim during prior probate proceedings. Because the plaintiffs had access to the medical records in January 2020, they had one year from that date to file their claim. However, the claim was not filed until November 22, 2022, which was about two years and ten months later, well past the statutory limit. Therefore, the claim was time barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
Significance of the Ruling
The ruling in Igtiben v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. provides greater certainty to healthcare providers and patients in evaluating potential professional negligence claims. It underscores the importance of careful responses to requests for medical records, as failure to provide all "relevant" records may hinder the triggering of inquiry notice.
Legal professionals involved in medical malpractice defense must be aware of the implications of this ruling. It highlights the need for meticulous examination of medical records, ensuring that all relevant information is made available to the plaintiff or their representative promptly. Failure to provide complete medical records could delay the commencement of inquiry notice, potentially impacting the outcome of the case.
Moving Forward
The Igtiben case serves as a significant precedent in Nevada's medical malpractice landscape, clarifying the importance of medical records in triggering inquiry notice. This ruling underscores the need for healthcare providers and legal professionals to handle requests for medical records with utmost care. By ensuring the timely provision of all relevant records, providers and patients can navigate potential professional negligence claims more effectively. The Igtiben ruling provides valuable guidance and emphasizes the role of complete and accurate medical records in the pursuit of justice in medical malpractice cases.