An employee injured on the job during a work-release program is not covered by the Nevada Department of Corrections program, but rather by his employer’s worker’s compensation insurance. Nev. Dep’t of Corr. v. York Claims Servs., 348 P.3d 1010, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 25 (2015).
Nevada attorneys have a duty to log in to the electronic filing system and check notifications for cases as often as is necessary to properly monitor pending cases, even if they do not receive electronic mail (e-mail) or other notice. Fulbrook v. Allstate Ins. Co., 350 P.3d 88, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 33 (2015).
Most are aware of the attorney client privilege, which protects the subject of communication between the lawyer and client made in furtherance of legal services. See NRS 49.095. However, the Nevada supreme court recently limited the privilege during discovery depositions. Although it appears that attorneys and witness/clients may freely confer during an unrequested recess in a deposition, an attorneys may not specifically request a break to confer with a witness in a deposition unless the purpose of the break is to determine whether to assert a privilege. Furthermore, the attorney must make a record of the confidential communications promptly after the deposition resumes in order to preserve the attorney-client privilege. See Coyote Springs Inv., LLC v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 347 P.3d 267, 273 (2015). This raises the possible scenario in which the opposing counsel could inquire as to the content of attorney-client communication if an unprepared lawyer or witness asks for a break during a pending question without properly noting the purpose is to assert a privilege and subsequently making the record in regards to the privilege.
Senate Bill 162 repeals NRS 690B.042. Effective May 28, 2015.
Under prior Nevada law, the insurer of the party against whom a personal injury claim was asserted had to disclose the insurance policy limits upon request by the claimant and receipt of records and bills from the claimant’s health care providers, or a written authorization from the claimant. This law was repealed. Therefore, claimants will not generally have the right to know whether the wrongdoer has the Nevada minimum required $15,000 per person policy limits or more.
The problem for many innocent claimants is they may not have health insurance and be treating pursuant to a lien or promise to pay back each medical provider regardless of recovery, all as a result of the other party’s negligence. Even with health insurance, the innocent victim may be stuck with expensive deductibles if the recovery is not sufficient.
Presently, the only way to force disclosure of the tortfeasor’s policy limits is through discovery after filing a personal injury lawsuit in court. The repeal of this law will very likely increase the time and costs of litigation and backlog the Nevada District Court calendar with unnecessary cases filed (to determine policy limits) that could have been settled without litigation.
Under NRS 439B.260, hospitals in Nevada must generally reduce charges by 30% to inpatients who have no health insurance “or other contractual agreement with a third party that provides health coverage for the charge.” In Bielar v. Washoe Health Sys., 306 P.3d 360, 367, 22, 129 Nev. Adv. Rep. 49 (2013), the Nevada Supreme Court found that the statute did not disqualify a plaintiff from receiving the 30-percent statutory discount when, subsequent to the hospital stay, the plaintiff agreed to a settlement with the party causing the injuries necessitating the medical services, and the plaintiff thus received insurance proceeds as compensation for the injuries she suffered.