Taylor v. Brill, M.D.

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the trial court's judgment and remanded for a new trial, holding that informed consent evidence and an assumption-of-risk defense are inadmissible in a medical malpractice action where consent is uncontested, that expert testimony is not required to prove the reasonableness of special damages, that insurance write-downs are not admissible under NRS 42.021(1), and that the trial court improperly limited the plaintiff's closing argument.