Williams v. Eighth Judicial District Court Ex Rel. County of Clark
127 Nev. 518
| Nev. | 2011Background
- Consolidated writ petitions review Nevada district court rulings on expert testimony in hepatitis C outbreak at ECSN endoscopy clinic.
- Plaintiffs allege Propofol vials were contaminated due to provider infection-control failures; theories include dirty scopes.
- Sicor retained Nurse Hambrick and Dr. Cohen to support alternative causation; plaintiffs moved to exclude their testimony.
- District courts in the two dockets reached different conclusions on Hambrick's qualifications and causation testimony.
- Nevada Supreme Court granted writs in part and denied in part, clarifying admissibility of nurse testimony and the standard for defense causation testimony.
- Court held nurse may testify on specialized topics but not on causation absent adequate qualifications; defense causation testimony standards depend on how used.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nurse Hambrick can testify about medical causation? | Williams; Hambrick lacks qualification to causation. | Sicor; nurses can testify if qualified. | No; Hambrick not qualified to testify on medical causation. |
| What standard applies to defense expert testimony offering alternative causation theories? | Defense must meet reasonable degree of medical probability. | Lower standard may apply when contradicting plaintiff or offering alternatives. | Standard varies: independent causation theories require reasonable medical probability; alternative theories contesting plaintiff may be relevant and supported without meeting 50%+ probability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Staccato v. Valley Hospital, 123 Nev. 526, 170 P.3d 503 (2007) (gatekeeping for expert testimony; qualifications and scope)
- Hallmark v. Eldridge, 124 Nev. 492, 189 P.3d 646 (2008) (testimony must assist the trier; knowledge and scope requirements)
- Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005) (reasonable degree of medical probability for causation opinions)
- Stinson v. England, 69 Ohio St.3d 451, 633 N.E.2d 532 (1994) (defense experts may offer multiple alternative causes with less than 50% certainty when rebutting plaintiff)