To prove medical malpractice, plaintiffs must first establish the accepted standard of medical care or practice, and then must show that the doctors' conduct departed from that standard, and legally caused injuries suffered. Fernandez v. Admirand, 843 P.2d 354, 108 Nev. 963 (1992).
To prevail in a medical malpractice action, the plaintiff must also prove that the alleged negligence more probably than not caused the ultimate injury. Perez v. Las Vegas Medical Center, 107 Nev. 1, 805 P.2d 589 (1991).
Under the "loss of chance" doctrine in a medical malpractice action, the injury to be redressed by law is not defined as death itself, but, rather, as the decreased chance of survival caused by the medical malpractice. Perez v. Las Vegas Medical Center, 107 Nev. 1, 805 P.2d 589 (1991).
A doctor has the duty to disclose information that a reasonable practitioner in the same field of practice would disclose; the doctor's duty is measured by a professional medical standard, which the patient must establish with expert testimony. NRS 449.710; Smith v. Cotter, 107 Nev. 267, 810 P.2d 1204 (1991).
A lack of informed consent must be demonstrated through expert testimony based upon NRS 41A.100, which requires expert testimony to prove negligence in medical malpractice actions. Smith v. Cotter, 107 Nev. 267, 810 P.2d 1204 (1991).
To establish proximate cause in an informed consent case, there must first be a showing that the unrevealed risk which should have been revealed by the doctor actually materialized, as well as showing that the patient would have refused surgery had he been informed of the risk. Smith v. Cotter, 107 Nev. 267, 810 P.2d 1204 (1991).
