Taylor v. Brill

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed a medical-malpractice judgment for the defendants and remanded for a new trial because the district court improperly admitted informed-consent evidence, excluded nonexpert evidence supporting the reasonableness of medical charges, admitted insurance write-down evidence, and restricted permissible closing argument. The court held that informed-consent evidence and an assumption-of-the-risk defense are improper when the plaintiff does not contest consent, while evidence of procedural risks may be admissible when presented through appropriate expert testimony and otherwise relevant to breach or causation. The court also reversed related costs and attorney-fee orders because the underlying judgment was reversed.