Recent Blog Posts in October 2007

Assembly Bill No. 483 dated March 20, 2007 revises Nevada law regarding the execution of property and wages from a judgment debtor.

The bill makes personal property whose total value does not exceed $1,000.00 exempt from execution. It also exempts tax refunds from federal earned income credit or a similar state law from being garnished.

The original bill includes the proper forms for a notice of the writ of execution, a writ describing the property exempt from execution, and a description of how the judgment debtor can claim these exemptions.

AB 483 adds the above corrections to these forms. To view the full bill, please check here. 
http://www.leg.state.nv.us/74th/Bills/AB/AB483.pdf

A pending case in the Texas Supreme Court may reverse a previous reform to medical malpractice suits in the state. This reform places restrictions on pre-trial discovery and postpones discovery until after the defendant gets an expert report confirming negligence.

This reform was originally made in order to quell excessive litigation. Many trial lawyers, however, are opposed to such reform because getting an expert opinion without full discovery can be very difficult.

The entire article from Legal Newsline detailing the pending case about this reform follows:

Lawyers, doctors await Tex. SC med-mal ruling: report

by Rob Luke

AUSTIN -- The Texas Supreme Court is currently mulling a case that could remove a key reform to the Lone Star State's medical-practice lawsuits, writes a prominent legal journal.

Texas Lawyer (TL) reported today that the case (In Re: Jack Jorden, M.D.) will determine whether restrictions on pre-trial discovery in med-mal cases, introduced in 2003, trump a state provision allowing such discovery. An appellate court in Tyler ruled it did not, but similar courts in Houston and Eastland disagreed.

The 2003 reform, which postpones the discovery phase of a med-mal case until after the defendant gets an expert report concluding negligence, was part of the state's 2003 tort-reform bill called H.B. 4. The bill introduced a variety of reforms because of what it called the state's "environment of excessive litigation."

The point of such changes is to cut costs in the system by weeding out weaker cases through limited discovery. Trial lawyers strongly opposed the move, claiming they could not gain an expert opinion without sufficient discovery, TL noted.

Early signs are that the med-mal reforms at issue in the case are beginning to show positive results, the TL piece pointed out, quoting briefs from the Texas Medical Association (TMA) among others. Access to care is improving while non-meritorious claims are decreasing, TMA's attorney pointed out.

But that could be in jeopardy if the Supreme Court follows the Tyler appellate decision and allows both to co-exist. "If you allow the process that the Tyler Court of Appeals allowed, virtually all of the safeguards on discovery that were imposed by H.B. 4 could be bypassed," R. Brent Cooper, an attorney in the case, told TL.

The state's trial lawyers, not surprisingly, have a different take. Texas Trial Lawyers Association President Jay Harvey told TL the case was about whether "the courts will continue to treat the health-care industry as a protected class beyond the legal system."

Nevada law requires that any driver involved in a traffic accident immediately stop his vehicle at the scene of the accident or, if his vehicle is obstructing traffic, to a location as close as possible. The law also requires that the driver of any vehicle involved in an accident file a report with the police department.

Assembly Bill No. 71 changes these laws. The bill clarifies the procedures for traffic accidents outlined in NRS 484.221 and modifies a requirement of NRS 484.223.

NRS 484.221 states that a driver involved in a traffic accident must move his vehicle if it is obstructing traffic. The bill changes the original statute to include the words: "As soon as reasonably practical." The bill also adds that the vehicle must be able to be moved "safely."

Assembly Bill No. 71 also adds a new section that changes NRS 484.223.

NRS 484.223 states that: "The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person or damage to any vehicle or other property which is driven or attended by any person shall... forthwith report such accident to the nearest office of a police authority."

The new bill changes this requirement and provides that: "A driver who moves or causes his vehicle to be moved...is not required to file a report pursuant to NRS 484.223 or 484.229." If a driver moves or causes his vehicle to be moved then that driver is no longer required to file a report.

Assembly Bill No. 133 dated February 20, 2007 will make some important changes to provisions relating to the status of health and dental insurance policies for patients.

Current law allows insurance providers to refuse to pay for claims until the premium on the policy is paid in full by the patient. Amendments to the rules regarding health insurance will require insurance companies to notify health providers of the status of the insurance policy for their patients. In turn, health providers are then required to inform the patients of this status and what actions the health provider must take under those circumstances. Lastly, health providers must reimburse their patients for any expenses that are later covered by their insurance. 

Assembly Bill number 385 dated March 16, 2007 makes some changes regarding the way the State Board of Medical Examiners oversees the practice of medicine.

First, the Board may issue special restricted licenses to graduates of foreign medial schools who want to do research, teach, or practice clinical medicine and the Board may regulate the performance of laser surgery, intense pulsed light therapy and the injection of cosmetic and chemotherapeutic substances. Only licensed physicians, osteopathic physicians or assistant physicians may do the procedures.

Second, the Board has the right to increase some penalties for physicians who fail to provide written notice of change of status or change of address.

Third, the Board can revise the scope of practice authorized for a physician practicing under a volunteer license to include treatment for uninsured persons or persons unable to afford health care. The Board can also give physicians assistants certain duties and immunities generally applicable to other health providers.

Fourth, the Board may discipline physicians for incurring or failing to report disciplinary action against them in another jurisdiction or for failure to obtain informed consent of a patient prior to a procedure.

Lastly, the Board may provide peer reviewers, employers, and volunteers in diversion programs with limited civil immunity. 

Nevada law requires that child and adult care facilities be licensed and follow certain rules and regulations. Assembly Bill No. 283 adds new requirements to this law. Chapter 432A of NRS now requires that child and adult care facilities maintain and provide certain information to parents, guardians or legal representatives. New requirements also make failure to comply grounds for revocation of a facility's license.

Section 1 of the new bill adds several new requirements. The bill requires that child and adult care facilities maintain records of licensure, inspections, complaints, and any disciplinary actions. Facilities must make the information available to the public or guardians of those cared for in the facility upon enrollment and upon request.

Section 2 allows the licensing bureau to deny, suspend or revoke the license of any facility that fails to comply with these new regulations. Section 4 allows the health division to deny, suspend or revoke the license of any facility that fails to comply with these new regulations.