Taylor v. Brill, M.D.

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the district court's judgment, holding that informed‑consent evidence and an assumption‑of‑risk defense are inadmissible in a medical‑malpractice action when the plaintiff does not contest consent, that lay evidence may prove the reasonableness of special‑damage billing without expert testimony, that insurance write‑downs are not admissible under NRS 42.021(1), and that limiting the plaintiff's closing argument was erroneous.