Medical Malpractice (“Med-Mal”) cases present a wide range of issues that make them difficult to litigate. Perhaps one of the more difficult issues from a potential Plaintiff’s perspective is the fact that the Nevada legislature has set a cap on the recovery for “non-economic” damages.
Nevada Revised Statute 41.A. 035 states:
“In an action for injury or death against a provider of health care based upon professional negligence, the injured plaintiff may recover noneconomic damages, but the amount of noneconomic damages awarded in such an action must not exceed $350,000, regardless of the number of plaintiffs, defendants or theories upon which liability may be based.”
Right to a Jury Trial: Simply put, no. The Nevada Supreme Court has said that although states have differing opinions on the issue, Nevada courts have clearly held that a “statutory limit on damages does not infringe upon a plaintiffs constitutional right.”  Nevada courts have determined that it is for the legislature, not the jury, to determine the “legal consequences of its factual findings.”
Equal Protection: Similarly, the Nevada Supreme court has also determined that such caps do not violate equal protection because the purpose of the stature is rationally related to a legitimate government purpose of ensuring that adequate and affordable health care is available to Nevada’s citizens.
When the question was posed to Nevada votes in 2004, the argument in support of the caps was that its intended purpose was to “stabilize Nevada’s health care crisis and provide protection for both doctors and patients.” The ballot measure received wide spread support from Nevada residents and passed.
If you believe that you have suffered from medical malpractice , it is important for you to understand how a cap on non-economic damages can effect your case. As such, it is helpful to distinguish between “economic” and “noneconomic damages.”
For example, if a physician’s professional negligence caused you to sustain medical expenses in the amount of $50,000.00, and a loss of earnings in the amount of $25,000.00, your total economic damages would be $75,000.00. If this same injury has now caused a permanent disfigurement and lifelong injuries, the most that you could receive in “non-economic” damages for your pain and suffering are $350,000.00. As a result, the maximum on your total recovery would be $425,000.00.
No, the cap applies regardless of the number of plaintiffs, defendants or theories upon which liability may be based. In Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct. the Nevada Supreme Court was asked to determine whether the term “action” in NRS 41A.035 refers to each separate claim, whereas it applies separately to each defendant, or if it refers to the case as a whole. In coming to its conclusion, the Supreme Court of Nevada looked to the legislative history of NRS 41A.035 and found that the “noneconomic damages cap in NRS 41A.035 applies per incident, regardless of how many plaintiffs, defendants, or claims are involved.” 
It depends. Your personal recovery is largely dependent on the existence of a health insurance lien. A lien is essentially the legal right of another to be paid or compensated from your personal injury settlement. The amount owed to your lienholders will be subtracted from your settlement first, as well as cost and fees associated with your attorney’s representation (Attorney’s also have a legal right to take out a lien on your settlement). That is why it is important to understand the fee arrangement you have agreed to with your attorney. Health insurance liens are a priority lien such that any amounts paid by a health insurer must be paid back 100%. This, in essence makes the recovery of such monies a windfall to the insurance as they do nothing to collect it except rely on the lawyer and the victim to go collect it. The amount of the actual health insurance payments are the only amounts the jury is allowed to consider. This is in contract to other types of negligence actions where the fair market value of the bill is actually allowed (i.e. not the lessor insurance contracted amount.) This is one other factor why attorneys may not take a personal injury malpractice matter as the medical expenses are drastically reduced by this rule. For example, a $100,000 hospital bill may only be reimbursed at 10% or $10,000.00. The jury is not to consider the $100,000 because health insurance only paid $10,000.00. This is known in Nevada as the collateral source doctrine. Collateral sources are normally not allowed; however, in medical malpractice cases, the collateral source doctrine is basically alleviated.
EXAMPLE: Total Settlement = Economic + Noneconomic Damages (Past and future) – (Liens) – (Attorney Fee’s)
Attorney’s fees are also capped in Med-Mal cases. Under NRS 7.095 Limitations on contingent fees for representation of persons in certain actions against providers of health care.
1. A personal injury attorney shall not contract for or collect a fee contingent on the amount of recovery for representing a person seeking damages in connection with an action for injury or death against a provider of health care based upon professional negligence in excess of: (a) Forty percent of the first $50,000 recovered; (b) Thirty-three and one-third percent of the next $50,000 recovered; (c) Twenty-five percent of the next $500,000 recovered; and (d) Fifteen percent of the amount of recovery that exceeds $600,000.
Not all cases are medical malpractice cases. Nevada specifically defines when these laws apply. Under NRS 7.095(4) (b) “Provider of health care” means a physician licensed under chapter 630 or 633 of NRS, dentist, registered nurse, dispensing optician, optometrist, registered physical therapist, podiatric physician, licensed psychologist, chiropractor, doctor of Oriental medicine, medical laboratory director or technician, licensed dietitian or a licensed hospital and its employees. Thus, certain professions, such as a pharmacist, are not protected by the caps and other rules that govern malpractice actions.
 *Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.*, 358 P.3d 234., Nev. No.66346, 2015; see also *Armesano v. State, Dep’t of Tansp.*, 113 Nev. 815, 819, 942 P.2d 139, 142 (1997)  Medical Malpractice has the same definition ascribed to it as “Professional negligence,” which means “the failure of a provider of health care, in rendering services, to use the reasonable care, skill or knowledge ordinarily used under similar circumstances by similarly trained and experienced providers of health care.” NRS. 41A.015; see also Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct., 358 P.3d 234., Nev. No.66346, 2015 (NRS 41A.035 applies to professional negligence claims, which by definition of NRS 41A.015 applies to "a provider of health care," and includes physicians licensed pursuant to NRS Chapters 630 and 633. NRS 41A.017.)  NRS 41A.007  NRS 41A.011  *Tam v. Eighth Jud. Dist. Ct.*, 358 P.3d 234., Nev. No.66346, 2015