 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Dutt v. Kremp12/22/1992
e you advocate today, it would undoubtedly discourage ordinary citizens from bringing a civil wrong to a court's attention or, for that matter, reporting criminal conduct. Finally, I suggest to you that the judicial task requires far more than sterile analytic skill; one needs compassion, humility, grace and, at times, mercy and the ability to forgive. In short, the judicial craft, as well as the law itself, demands a heart.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, we reverse the judgment entered below, and we remand this case to the district court for entry of judgment in favor of appellant.
Young, J., concur.
[108 Nev. 1076, Page 1085]
Springer, J., concurring: I *p+have *p+heretofore *p+filed *p+an *p+order, *p+ordering *p+that *p+the *p+clerk *p+strike *p+my *p+name *p+from *p+the *p+majority *p+opinion *p+filed *p+in this *p+case *p+because *p+Chief *p+Justice *p+Mowbray *p+altered *p+the *p+original *p+without *p+my *p+knowledge *p+and *p+inserted *p+offensive material *p+critical *p+of *p+Justice *p+Thomas *p+Steffen *p+with *p+which *p+I *p+strongly *p+disagree. *p+I *p+agree *p+with *p+the *p+decision *p+of *p+the plurality *p+of *p+Justices *p+Mowbray *p+and *p+Young; *p+hence, *p+I *p+concur *p+in *p+the *p+result *p+of *p+that *p+opinion *p+only *p+and *p+not *p+with *p+the opinion itself.
Steffen, J., with whom Rose, J., agrees, dissenting:
I am persuaded that the trial evidence supports the verdict reached by the jury and that the result and substance of the majority opinion are incorrect. I am therefore constrained to dissent.
If we were reviewing a judgment against a member of the medical profession for medical malpractice on equivalent facts, I have no doubt that the judgment would be upheld. Consider our hypothetical physician who, after listening to the complaints of a patient, reaches a diagnosis in an area outside his or her area of expertise without even performing a meaningful medical evaluation. Moreover, our hypothetical physician disdains a consultation, deciding to forge ahead on the basis of an unconfirmed suspicion derived almost entirely from the verbalized complaints of the patient. Finally, the uninformed physician performs unnecessary and unsuccessful surgery. Accountability for medical malpractice under those circumstances would be both predictable and justified.
In the instant case, attorney Dutt filed a thoroughly inadequate complaint against numerous doctors and a hospital two days before the effective date of a statute that would have required Dutt to file a complaint with a medical-legal screening panel. The purpose for which the screening panel procedure was enacted is to discourage or minimize the filing of medical malpractice actions that are lacking in merit. The benefits of such a screening procedure are obvious: lower medical malpractice insurance rates (insurance costs are always passed on to the patients), less diversion of limited medical resources to defend against unwarranted litigation, enlightenment to attorneys inexperienced in complex medical malpractice cases, and a decreased toll on physicians and their reputations that would otherwise result from unmeritorious malpractice actions, to name but a few. According to attorney Dutt, the instant action was the first time he had ever filed a civil complaint for medical malpractice.
[108 Nev. 1076, Page 1086]
Prior to filing the complaint, Dutt assigned a law school graduate who worked for him to read the medical records and evaluate them with him. Dutt testified that he relied on the law school graduate's “opinions and recommendations as to what was in the [medical]
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Nevada Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|