Before Justices Douglas, Hardesty and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
In this petition for writ relief, the Court considered whether NRS 41A.071’s medical expert affidavit requirement without a properly executed jurat (evidence that the person making the statement did so under oath before the appropriate officer). NRS 41A.071 requires medical experts to supply an affidavit in a medical malpractice action, which is satisfied by either (1) a sworn statement before a proper officer that usually includes a jurat, or (2) an unsworn declaration made under penalty of perjury. Applying similar analyses from other jurisdictions, the Court concluded that a party can overcome a missing or defective jurat by providing other, outside evidence to demonstrate that the expert made the statement under oath or that the expert made an unsworn statement under penalty of perjury. In this case, the plaintiff’s medical expert made a statement, acknowledged by a notary, supporting the medical malpractice claim but lacking a jurat or other affirmation regarding the truth of the statement. In the writ proceedings, the plaintiff submitted a declaration from the expert stating that he swore to the statement under oath, but this evidence had not been presented to the district court. Accordingly, the Court granted the Petitioner’s requested relief in part and instructed the district court to conduct an evidentiary hearing to determine whether the plaintiff could present sufficient evidence to prove that the medical expert made his statement under oath in compliance with NRS 41A.071. Petition granted in part. (Seth T. Floyd, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson).
