Rejman v. Shang, 2:15-cv-00367

Plaintiff Kamila Rejman visited Urgent Care Extra on January 5, 2014; Dr. Thomas Shang diagnosed sinusitis/bronchitis, prescribed meds, and recommended a Kenalog steroid injection administered by a nurse.
Plaintiff noticed skin changes (depression, bruising, discoloration) at the injection site in February 2014; a dermatologist examined her on March 8, 2014 and opined the damage was lipodystrophy from an improperly administered Kenalog injection.
Plaintiff later was diagnosed with linear scleroderma and underwent additional procedures.
Plaintiff filed suit March 2, 2015 asserting medical negligence/malpractice (claim 1) and battery (claim 3) against Dr. Shang (among other claims against other defendants).
Dr. Shang moved for summary judgment arguing: (1) the malpractice claim is time-barred under NRS 41A.097(2)’s one-year discovery rule; and (2) the battery claim is legally deficient.
The court denied summary judgment: it held the malpractice claim was timely because inquiry notice occurred no later than March 8, 2014 (so the March 2, 2015 complaint was within one year), and it rejected defendant’s challenge to the battery claim because an alleged nonconsensual medical procedure can state a civil battery.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether malpractice claim is time-barred under NRS 41A.097(2) discovery rule	Rejman did not discover (and could not reasonably have discovered) negligent cause until dermatologist’s March 8, 2014 opinion	Shang contends inquiry notice arose earlier (by Jan 26, 2014) when plaintiff first noticed a "black point" at injection site	Court: accrual date is a jury question generally, but as a matter of law plaintiff was on inquiry notice no later than March 8, 2014; claim filed March 2, 2015 is timely
Whether plaintiff was on inquiry notice on Jan 26, 2014	Not on notice from mere irritation; noticing symptoms alone did not put plaintiff on notice of negligent cause	Symptoms on Jan 26 sufficiently put plaintiff on inquiry notice	Court: Jan 26 did not irrefutably establish inquiry notice; cannot resolve as matter of law in defendant’s favor
Validity of civil battery claim for unauthorized medical touching	Rejman asserts lack of consent to the injection supports civil battery	Shang argues battery claim lacks legal basis (relies on criminal definition)	Court: Civil battery standard controls; performing a medical procedure without consent can be battery; genuine dispute exists — summary judgment denied
Whether summary judgment appropriate overall	Plaintiff opposes summary judgment on both claims	Defendant seeks summary judgment on both claims	Court: Denied — malpractice timely; battery claim survives past summary judgment

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment burden-shifting framework)
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 (district court’s role at summary judgment; nonmovant’s evidence to be credited for inferences)
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 (nonmoving party must show genuine factual dispute)
C.A.R. Transp. Brokerage Co. v. Darden Rests., Inc., 213 F.3d 474 (9th Cir.) (movant’s burden when it would bear trial burden)
T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass'n, 809 F.2d 626 (9th Cir.) (what factual showing creates a triable dispute)
Winn v. Sunrise Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 277 P.3d 458 (Nev.) (NRS 41A.097(2) discovery/inquiry-notice standard)
Massey v. Litton, 669 P.2d 248 (Nev.) (injury includes discovery of damage and negligent cause)