Oral Argument Calendar: Nov. 2

Marrs (Shirley) v. Schiff (Dr. Steven),

Docket No. 53601

Carson City - 10:00 a.m. - Full Court (Justice Hardesty disqualified)

This is an appeal from a Washoe County district court judgment in a medical malpractice action, which alleged that doctors diagnosed and treated a woman for metastatic bone cancer that she did not have.  In May 2000, Shirley Marrs was informed by respondents Steven Schiff, M.D., and John Shields, M.D., that she had terminal metastatic bone cancer.  Marrs received continuous treatment until January 2003, which she alleges caused her significant emotional and physical distress.  Marrs resumed treatment with another medical provider who informed her in September 2004 that she, in fact, did not have metastatic bone cancer.  In September 2005, Marrs filed a complaint against respondents alleging that they misdiagnosed her and then followed up with unnecessary treatment.  Marrs further alleged that respondents concealed their misdiagnosis during the course of treatment.  At trial, the district court granted respondents' motion for judgment as a matter of law on the grounds that Marrs's complaint was filed too late under NRS 41A.097(1), which provides that an action for injury against a health care provider may not be commenced more than four years after the date of injury.  Subsequently, Marrs moved to have the district court judge who presided over the trial disqualified for bias.  Another district court judge denied the motion to disqualify.  ISSUES: Did the district court err in concluding that Marrs's complaint was time-barred?  Should the time for filing a complaint have been extended due to respondents' alleged concealment of their negligence?  Did the second judge err by failing to disqualify the trial judge?

 

Southern California Edison v. Dist. Ct. (Dept. of Taxation),

Docket No. 55228

Carson City - 11:30 a.m. - Full Court

In this original petition for a writ of mandamus, the Supreme Court is being asked to determine the standard of review a district court should apply in reviewing refund decisions of the Nevada Tax Commission.  Southern California Edison filed several claims with the Nevada Department of Taxation for refunds of use taxes Edison paid between 1998 and 2000.  The Department denied Edison's claims and Edison appealed to the Nevada Tax Commission.  Ultimately, the Commission denied Edison's claims.  Edison then filed a complaint in district court pursuant to NRS 372.680, which allows for an independent action to be brought in district court against the Department after a final decision is rendered by the Commission. Such an action would be reviewed by the district court de novo, that is, without deference to the Commission's decision.  The Department filed a motion to dismiss Edison's complaint, arguing that recent amendments to the pertinent statutes have altered the refund procedure and that the proper vehicle for challenging the Commission's decision is a petition for judicial review pursuant to NRS 233B.130.  Such a petition would be reviewed by the district court under a substantial evidence standard, which would require the district court to give more deference to the Commission's decision.   The district court ordered that the matter should proceed as a petition for judicial review.  The district court proceeding has been postponed until the Supreme Court decides the petition for writ of mandamus.  ISSUE: Did legislation alter the practice for use tax refund claims to allow only petitions for judicial review?

 

Guy (Curtis) v. State of Nevada (Death Penalty),

Docket No. 50350

Carson City - 1:00 p.m. - Full Court (Justices Douglas and Cherry disqualified)

This is Curtis Guy's appeal from a district court order denying his post-conviction petition for a writ of habeas corpus in a death penalty case.  Guy was convicted by a Clark County jury of first-degree murder in the death of Ceasor Evans stemming from a dispute over cocaine.  Guy previously appealed his conviction and death sentence, which were affirmed by the Nevada Supreme Court.  Guy then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the district court, arguing that his conviction was invalid for numerous reasons.  The district court denied the habeas corpus petition and Guy has appealed that decision.  ISSUES: Was Guy's trial counsel ineffective, warranting a new trial?  Did the district court err in finding that the jury's consideration of two invalid aggravators was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?  Did the district court properly deny Guy's claim of cumulative error?