Did You Know Nevada Had Quarantine Law Pre-Pandemic

FIVE FACTS ABOUT NEVADA QUARANTINE LAW

1) Doctors in Nevada have been required to report communicable disease of a patient pre-pandemic.

2) Authorities have had authority to enter a private residence to order a person suspected of having a communicable disease to submit to a test.

3 Authorities have had authority to issue an order requiring isolation of a person suspected of having a communicable disease.

4) Healthcare providers who do not report infectious disease to authorities are subject to criminal and civil penalties.

5) Health authorities cannot make you get treatment against your will.

It might be surprising to know that Nevada has had infectious disease statutes on the books for many years. NRS 441A.010 through NRS 441A.930 govern what powers authorities have to control infectious disease in our state. A reading of the statutes is somewhat shocking as they literally remove any and all civil rights that you have as an American. It is important to note that the statues have been on the books since at least 1989 and have been regularly modified and updated. The year 1989 was the year that the Ebola virus broke out. Ebola was a devastating disease, although not that wide spread in the United States.  Prior to the infectious disease statutes, Nevada had statutes on the books governing public health and safety which also covered disease prevention dating back to the early 1900s.

A review of the current statutory scheme of NRS 441A relating to infectious disease is actually somewhat shocking to a legal professional. NRS 441A.920 actually prescribes criminal penalty and administrative fines for the failure of a healthcare facility to negligently or intentionally comply with any of these regulations.  If fact, it subjects healthcare professionals to misdemeanor penalties as well as fines of $1000 for each violation. It also directs the district attorney of each county to prosecute these violations. The statute makes civil mistake a criminal act in the state of Nevada under NRS 441A.930. The basis of most criminal law is mental intent. These statutes impose criminal penalty without the intention of committing a criminal act. 

In addition, the statutes also allow grave interference into personal privacy and human rights.   NRS 441A.169 gives broad powers to the health authority and allows them to issue cease-and-desist orders to healthcare providers or medical facilities. The statute states that “during the course or as a result of an investigation concerning the case or suspected case of infectious disease… A health authority may… Take any other action to reduce or illuminate the harm to the health, safety or welfare of the public.”  With this broad stroke of the pen, this statutory section allows for healthcare authorities to take any action they believe necessary against persons suspected of having infectious disease without due process, without the right to be heard, without any privileges afforded by our constitution for your own rights. In the mass of this pandemic which, has sadly affected approximately 2500 of our residents out of the 3,000,000 plus  in the state, to trample the individual rights of every citizen in our state and even eliminate their livelihood. I don’t have intention to be political in this blog as many people have different opinions about the quarantine and the states’ rights. However, in a nation that prides itself on a system of democracy and due process, the Nevada scheme eliminated all of those rights when it comes to any communicable disease, regardless of  whether it is a flu or Ebola. The statute makes no distinction. The statutes would allow authorities to take the same action regardless of the nature of the infection infectious or illness that is at issue. The link below will take you to the exact statutes. I have presented several below that are that quantify the overall statutory scheme: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-441A.html#NRS441ASec010

NRS 441A.150  Reporting occurrences of communicable diseases to health authority; reporting drug overdoses to Chief Medical Officer. [Effective January 1, 2020.]

1.   A provider of health care who knows of, or provides services to, a person who has or is suspected of having a communicable disease shall report that fact to the health authority in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the Board. If no provider of health care is providing services, each person having knowledge that another person has a communicable disease shall report that fact to the health authority in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the Board.

2.   A provider of health care who knows of, or provides services to, a person who has suffered or is suspected of having suffered a drug overdose shall report that fact and the information required by the Board pursuant to NRS 441A.120 to the Chief Medical Officer or his or her designee in the manner prescribed by the regulations of the Board. The Chief Medical Officer or his or her designee shall upload that information to the database of the program established pursuant to NRS 453.162 if the program allows for the upload of such information.

3.  A medical facility in which more than one provider of health care may know of, or provide services to, a person who has or is suspected of having a communicable disease or who has suffered or is suspected of having suffered a drug overdose shall establish administrative procedures to ensure that the health authority or Chief Medical Officer or his or her designee, as applicable, is notified.

4.  A laboratory director shall, in the manner prescribed by the Board, notify the health authority of the identification by his or her medical laboratory of the presence of any communicable disease in the jurisdiction of that health authority. The health authority shall not presume a diagnosis of a communicable disease on the basis of the notification received from the laboratory director.

5.  If more than one medical laboratory is involved in testing a specimen, the laboratory that is responsible for reporting the results of the testing directly to the provider of health care for the patient shall also be responsible for reporting to the health authority.

NRS 441A.160  Investigation: Powers of health authority to conduct investigation of communicable disease; order to require person to submit to examination; order of isolation, quarantine or treatment.

1.  A health authority who knows, suspects or is informed of the existence within the jurisdiction of the health authority of any communicable disease shall immediately investigate the matter and all circumstances connected with it, and shall take such measures for the prevention, suppression and control of the disease as are required by the regulations of the Board or a local board of health.

      2.  A health authority may:

      (a) Enter private property at reasonable hours to investigate any case or suspected case of a communicable disease.

(b) Order any person whom the health authority reasonably suspects has a communicable disease in an infectious state to submit to any medical examination or test which the health authority believes is necessary to verify the presence of the disease. The order must be in writing and specify the name of the person to be examined and the time and place of the examination and testing, and may include such terms and conditions as the health authority believes are necessary to protect the public health.

(c) Except as otherwise provided in subsection 5 and NRS 441A.210, issue an order requiring the isolation, quarantine or treatment of any person or group of persons if the health authority believes that such action is necessary to protect the public health. The order must be in writing and specify the person or group of persons to be isolated or quarantined, the time during which the order is effective, the place of isolation or quarantine and other terms and conditions which the health authority believes are necessary to protect the public health, except that no isolation or quarantine may take place if the health authority determines that such action may endanger the life of a person who is isolated or quarantined.

3.  Each order issued pursuant to this section must be served upon each person named in the order by delivering a copy to him or her.

4.  If a health authority issues an order to isolate or quarantine a person with a communicable or infectious disease in a medical facility, the health authority must isolate or quarantine the person in the manner set forth in NRS 441A.510 to 441A.720, inclusive.

5.  Except as otherwise provided in NRS 441A.310 and 441A.380, a health authority may not issue an order requiring the involuntary treatment of a person without a court order requiring the person to submit to treatment.

So to answer the broad question of what powers does the state have when it comes to infectious disease, the answer is all. They can come to your house and remove you from your residence. They can force you to take medical testing against your will to determine if you are carrying the disease and they can force you into isolation or quarantine at their own will. If this sounds extreme,  it is. It is the wording of the statute. It is a difficult issue to reconcile. Weighing public safety against individual rights is a fundamental aspect of the law. However, this is an area where it appears that the power falls completely to the state. You do not have the right to seek an independent test under the statute. You do not have the right to determine whether you should be isolated under the statute. You do not have the right to refuse entry into your home under the statute.

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters and have over 15 years of experience in reviewing insurance policies and in Nevada insurance law.   If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

ATTORNEYS FEES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES

TOP FIVE THINGS TO KNOW WHEN HIRING A MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ATTORNEY

  1. The Fees Capped Nevada by Statute 
  2. Hire an Experienced Attorney
  3. You only have one year, with some exceptions) to Bring your claim
  4. You need Your own Expert Before you File your Lawsuit
  5. You Will Need All of Your Medical Records

In 2004, Nevada, pursuant to Ballot question No. 3, implemented a statutory limitation on attorney’s fees in medical malpractice as a result of the tort reform bill that was passed into law by a vote upon of the people. NRS 7.095 prescribes the statutory allowable fees that attorneys can charge in medical malpractice cases. Therefore, the state legislature has determined what a reasonable fee is for a medical malpractice case.  Courts in California have consistently and uniformly held that even with a valid, agreed upon, non-disputed waiver in place, the statutory provision regarding attorney’s fees is not waivable or “voidable.” An extensive review of the California decisions on this issue reveals the courts have consistently held that a comprehensive and extensive writing waiving the statutory fee limitation is still insufficient to void the statute.  In fact, they have consistently ruled that the statute is not “voidable.”   

NEVADA LAW REGARDING ATTORNEYS FEES FOR MEDICAL MALPRACTICE CASES

In Nevada, the State Legislature added NRS 7.095 to the Nevada Revised Statutes in 2004 pursuant to the passage of Ballot Question No. 3 passed on November 4, 2004, which states as follows: 

NRS 7.095  Limitations on contingent fees for representation of persons in certain actions against providers of health care.

1.   An 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.

      2.  The limitations set forth in subsection 1 apply to all forms of recovery, including, without limitation, settlement, arbitration and judgment.

3.  For the purposes of this section, “recovered” means the net sum recovered by the plaintiff after deducting any disbursements or costs incurred in connection with the prosecution or settlement of the claim. Costs of medical care incurred by the plaintiff and general and administrative expenses incurred by the office of the attorney are not deductible disbursements or costs.

       4.  As used in this section:

      (a) “Professional negligence” means a negligent act or omission to act by a provider of health care in the rendering of professional services, which act or omission is the proximate cause of a personal injury or wrongful death. The term does not include services that are outside the scope of services for which the provider of health care is licensed or services for which any restriction has been imposed by the applicable regulatory board or health care facility.

(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.

      (Added to NRS by 2004 initiative petition, Ballot Question No. 3; A 2011, 1510)

Although the Nevada Court has not specifically addressed the attorney fee provision, they have addressed the constitutionality of the statute and repeatedly followed precedent from the mirrored statute from California that has been in force since 1975.  

CALIFORNIA LAW ON LIMITING ATTORNEYS FEES IN MEDICAL MALPRACTICE ACTION

Although the medical malpractice reform act was not passed in Nevada until 2004, the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act of California (herein referred to as MICRA,) was enacted in California in 1975 by the California Legislature and signed into law by Governor Jerry Brown in September 1975. The act was intended to lower medical malpractice liability insurance premiums and was enacted on an emergency basis to keep healthcare providers as a whole financially solvent. It was intended to lower the cost of healthcare services and make them more available.  Since MICRA was enacted nearly 40 years ago, it has been challenged on numerous occasions in the California Courts. It has repeatedly been held constitutional by the California Courts and almost all of the original MICRA legislation is still in force and effect and part of California law. 

The Nevada statute is nearly identical to the California Statute.  In California, non-economic damages are capped at $250,000 instead of $350,000 in Nevada.   However, the California statute limiting attorney’s fees is almost identical to Nevada’s statue. Extensive litigation has gone on in California regarding the attorney’s fees provision under the MICRA statutory scheme.   In California, plaintiffs’ attorneys can receive 40% of the first $50,000 recovered, 33 1/3% of the next $50,000 recovered, 25% of the next $500,000 recovered, and 15% of any amount recovered in excess of $600,000 under Business and Professions Code section 6146.  

     A RAND report issued estimates that as a result of MICRA, defendants’ liabilities were reduced by 30%.  However, between 1985 and 1988 malpractice premiums actually rose 47% in California. After 1988 insurance premiums in California experienced a decrease which was a result of proposition 103. It was voted into law in 1988 at section 1861.01 of the California insurance code and explicitly required a rollback of insurance premiums by 20%.  

 (  www.consumerwatchdog.org/documents/1008.pdf   ) ( March 7, 2003)

    New challenges were raised to MICRA by the plaintiffs’ bar after proposition 103 was enacted claiming that MICRA was outdated legislation and that the problem of increased premiums was resolved by proposition 103. The courts repeatedly declined to rollback or limit MICRA’S provisions after the enactment of proposition 103.  (Cal Ins. Code Sec. 1861.01)

Nevada Origination of the Statute

Seeing the alleged success of this legislation in reducing insurance premiums for medical writers in California, other states started to follow suit. Nevada placed Question No. 3 on the ballot in 2004 and on November 4, 2004, it was ratified by a 60% majority of Nevada voters.  Question No. 3 set a maximum schedule for attorney’s fees and capped non-economic damages at $350,000. The question, known as the KODIN initiative for keep our doctors in Nevada, was promoted by pointing to an alleged trend of Nevada doctors fleeing the state for states with lower malpractice premiums like California. To counter this legislation the Nevada plaintiffs’ bar put Questions No. 4 and 5 on the same ballot.  Both were defeated in the election and the statutory scheme was voted into law by the Nevada public and became law in the state in 2004.

NEVADA CASE LAW

In Tam vs. The Eight Judicial District Court, 131 Nev., Advance Opinion No. 66346, (2015) the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of NRS 41A.035 (2004).  In the Tam case, the Supreme Court granted a writ of mandamus on behalf of Dr. Tam challenging the district court’s ruling the state statute was unconstitutional in medical malpractice actions. In the opinion which is decided on a writ, the Nevada Supreme Court resolved three primary issues related to the statute:

  1. Whether the statue violates a Plaintiff’s right to a trial by jury; 
  2. Whether the cap applies separately to each cause of action;  
  3. Whether the statute applies to medical malpractice actions. 

The Supreme Court held that the district court erred in finding the statute was unconstitutional on the basis that it violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right to trial by jury.  The court further held that the district court erred when it found that the statutory cap applied per plaintiff and per defendant. Finally, the Supreme Court also concluded that the District Court erred when it found the statute applied only to professional negligence and not medical malpractice. 

The underlying facts of the case involved the death of Charles Thomas Cornell, Jr.  an action brought by his wife Sherry Cornell, the real party in interest. Mr. Charles had multiple medical conditions and he passed away after being released from the hospital and alleged he was not prescribed medications and further care to treat his diabetes.  Suit was filed against numerous defendants after Mr. Cornell‘s death. Relevant to the opinion was the writ of mandamus filed regarding the ruling on Defendant’s omnibus motion in limine. The motion filed by Dr. Tam requested that non-economic damages be limited to $350,000 pursuant to the statute NRS 41 8.035. The District Court denied the motion finding the statute was unconstitutional and violated Plaintiff’s constitutional right to a trial by jury.  The District Court, also held that the statutory cap did not apply to the case as a whole and that a separate cap applies for each plaintiff and for each of the defendants. In addition, the District Court found the cap did not apply to medical malpractice claims. Based on that motion in limine, relief under a writ of mandamus was sought and granted.

Among other things, the Supreme Court held that for a statute to violate the right to jury trial, it must make the right practically unavailable. They relied upon Barrett vs Baird 111 Nev. 1496, 1502, 908 P 2d 689, 694 (1995) The Supreme Court acknowledged that jurisdictions disagree on whether statutory damages caps violate the right to a trial by jury.   They stated that they have previously found that a statutory limit on damages does not infringe on the plaintiff’s constitutional right. 

In Arnesano vs State Department of Transportation 113 Nev. 815, 819, 942 P 2d 139, 142, (1997), the court relied upon the case of Martinez vs Maruszczak, 123 Nev. 433, 168 P. 3d 720 (2007) and held that “it is not the role of a jury to determine the legal consequences of its factual findings… That is a matter for the legislature. “ Id at 819-820, 942 P. 2d at 152 quoting Boyd vs Bulala 877 F. 2d 1191, 1196 (4th Cir. 1989). The Nevada Supreme Court looked to California for guidance.   This issue has been decided in California in addressing the constitutionality of the statutory cap on non-economic damages in cases involving healthcare provider’s professional negligence. In Citing Yates vs Pollock, 239 Cal Rpt. 383, 385 (Ct. App 1987) the court concluded “that such an argument is merely an indirect attack upon the legislatures power to place a cap on damages. The Yates court noted  that while the statute could possibly result in a lower judgment of the jury’s award, “the  legislature retains broad control over the measure of damages a defendant is obligated to pay and that a plaintiff is entitled to receive… and it may expand or limit recoverable damages so long as it’s action is rationally related to legitimate state interest.“  Yates at 385–386

The Nevada Supreme Court  in Tam went on to state that “consistent with our prior holding in Arensano and persuasive case law from California, “we conclude that NRS 41A.035 does not interfere with the jury in their factual findings because it takes affect only after the jury has made its assessment of damages and that  it does not implicate a plaintiff’s right to trial by jury.” 

The court went on to hold that the statute also did not violate equal protection rights and also relied on California holdings on this issue.  The court further held that “we do not look beyond the language of the statute if it is clear on its face“ citing Beazer Homes Nevada Inc. vs Eighth Judicial District Court 120 Nev. 575, 579, 97 P. 3d 1132, 1135, (2004.) In this instance, the Tam decision did not address the attorney fee portion of the statute, NRS 7.095, although  the provision is very clear on its face.

Also discussed by the Supreme Court in the Tam decision is the legislative history which they acknowledged discusses a comparison between the Nevada statute and California’s analogous statute noting “that NRS 41A.035 is similarly per incident not per claimant, and not per doctor.” The court also held that “the official explanation to ballot question No. 3 stated that the previous statute provided that a person seeking damages in a medical malpractice action is limited to recovering $350,000 in non-economic damages from each defendant and  the proposal, if passed, would limit the recovery of non-economic damages to $350,000 per action” (Citing Nevada ballot questions 2004, question No. 3, explanation at 14 available at HTTPS://www.leg.state.nv.us/Division/Research/VoteNV/BallotQuestions/2004.pdf2004.  )

The court in Tam went on to state “the intent behind the statute is further evidenced by the legislature is discussion of recent amendments to NRS 41A.035, indicating that the purpose of the 2004 amendments was to clarify that the cap for non-economic damages is intended to apply per action. “ (See Hearing on SB 292 before the Senate Judiciary Comm, 78th Leg. (Nev., March 26, 2015). It is clear from this decision that the Nevada Supreme Court found this legislation to be constitutional. It is also clear that they looked to California for guidance in mirroring their statute and will likely look to California for guidance in its further application.

As attorneys, the people sitting next to us are the clients we are here to protect.   Their rights are paramount. It is our duty as lawyers to advise them and to counsel them to allow them to knowingly make decisions that affect the outcome of their cases.  Lawyers are charged with the ethical duty of advising their clients of the law in many situations. Whether it’s a plea agreement in a criminal matter, whether it’s a bankruptcy, whether it’s this case where the statute at issue was voted on by the people and enacted into law, it is the responsibility of counsel to explain to clients that the law allows them to make decisions for the outcome of their case. 

Although the supreme court in the state of Nevada has not ruled on this specific attorney fee issue under the reform statute, the ruling in the Tam case is clear that they find the statutory provisions to be constitutional. The Nevada Supreme Court has  looked to our sister state of California in reviewing the constitutionality of the Nevada act’s provisions, which mirrors the California legislation. It is important for attorneys to be clear and accurate in advising clients of their rights.  At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, we take the time to meet with every client and take pride in explaining the law and their options in detail. I operate a small, boutique law firm specializing in giving personal representation to each client. 

If you or a loved one has been injured as a result of poor medical care, call our office immediately.  We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve, and advise on how to preserve evidence.  If you have been in any type of accident and have questions, please don’t hesitate to contact our offices today.  At my office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to. Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities.  They want to pay as little on every claim as possible. Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

          At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt we are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur. For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our offices.  The Law Offices of Laura Payne Hunt is a boutique, family owned law firm in Henderson that specializes in helping injured people and the community with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

Is My Car A Total Loss And What Does That Mean?

FIVE IMPORTANT FACTS WHEN YOUR CAR IS TOTAL LOSS

   1) Sometimes you can’t tell by looking if the car is a total loss

    2) You will not get to decide whether or not your car is a total loss

   3) Legally, if the cost to repair is more than 65% of the car’s value, it’s a total loss.

4) The fair market value of the vehicle is negotiable, don’t let the insurance company tell  you it’s not. So always have gap insurance on a new car loan for the first few years.

   5) The loan on the car is not the fair market value.

One of the biggest misconceptions that we see in our office is what the meaning of total loss is in the context of an auto accident. Often times,  clients think that total loss means they will get a new car. Unfortunately that is not the case. In addition, clients will often think that they can determine whether or not their car is, in fact, a total loss. Unfortunately,  that is also not the case. In the state of Nevada, whether a car is a total loss is governed by Nevada Revised Statute 487.790. Specifically NRS 487.790 states as:

NRS 487.790  “Total loss vehicle” defined.

      1.  “Total loss vehicle” means a motor vehicle:

      (a) Of a type which is subject to registration; and

      (b) Which has been wrecked, destroyed or otherwise damaged to such an extent that the cost of repair is 65 percent or more of the fair market value of the vehicle immediately before it was wrecked, destroyed or otherwise damaged, except that, for the purposes of this paragraph, the cost of repair does not include the cost of:

             (1) Painting any portion of the vehicle;

             (2) Replacing electronic components in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer; or

             (3) Towing the vehicle.

      2.  The term does not include:

      (a) A nonrepairable vehicle;

      (b) A motor vehicle which is 10 model years old or older and which, to restore the vehicle to its condition before it was wrecked, destroyed or otherwise damaged and regardless of cost, requires the replacement of only:

             (1) The hood;

            (2) The trunk lid;

             (3) A fender;

             (4) Two or fewer of the following parts or assemblies, which may be bolted or unbolted:

                   (I) Doors;

                   (II) A grill assembly;

                   (III) A bumper assembly;

                   (IV) A headlight assembly; or

                   (V) A taillight assembly; or

             (5) Any combination of subparagraph (1), (2), (3) or (4);

      (c) A motor vehicle, regardless of the age of the vehicle, for which the cost to repair the vehicle is less than 65 percent of the fair market value of the vehicle immediately before the vehicle was wrecked, destroyed or otherwise damaged, except that, for the purposes of this paragraph, the cost of repair does not include the cost of:

             (1) Painting any portion of the vehicle;

             (2) Replacing electronic components in accordance with the specifications of the manufacturer; or

             (3) Towing the vehicle; or

      (d) A motor vehicle that was stolen and subsequently recovered, if the motor vehicle:

             (1) Has no structural damage; and

             (2) Is missing only tires, wheels, audio or video equipment, or some combination thereof.

      3.  For the purposes of this section, the model year of manufacture is calculated based on a year beginning on January 1 of the calendar year in which the damage occurs.

      (Added to NRS by 1995, 1573; A 2003, 1911; 2005, 1245; 2011, 1663)

What this means is that if the repair estimate to fix your car is more than 65% of the fair market value of the vehicle, it must be declared a total loss by state law. However, even with this definition that would seem clear on its face, there are a lot of variables. Such variables include determining what will be the  actual cost to repair the car as well as the actual value of the car. I will discuss each one of these issues.

IS THE CAR A TOTAL LOSS

First,  it is necessary to determine whether the vehicle is, in fact,  a total loss. With over 15 years’ experience in this business, I can generally look at a photograph and tell you if the vehicle is going to be a total loss. Feel free to call our office with any questions if you have been involved in accident involving a vehicle that has been deemed a total loss.  When estimating the damage, the insurance company will generally allow some leeway for hidden damage in determining whether to repair the vehicle or not. For example if your vehicle is worth $10,000 and the insurance company estimates the damage at $4,000, they will likely deem the car a total loss because if there is additional hidden damage found when repairs begin, it will rise to the level of total loss.       

Sometimes, if the client really wants the vehicle repaired, and it is close on the total loss versus fair market value, we can have their carrier repair the vehicle and the client will sign a waiver regarding future repair costs. This is not something we generally recommend but there are occasions that  clients are very attached to their vehicles and do not want to send them to the salvage yard. At the Law Offices of Laura Hunt, we listen to our clients’ needs and requests and assist throughout the property damage loss assessment and payment. We also do not take any fee for handling this portion of the case when handling the personal injury matter.  It is important when finding a personal injury attorney to discuss this matter up front. Many personal injury attorneys do not help their clients with the property damage at all. At The Law Offices of Laura Hunt, we make sure you are fairly compensated for your vehicle or that it is fully repaired, and we do not charge for this service when handling the personal injury claim.

HOW MUCH IS MY CAR WORTH

The second part of a total loss claim is determining the fair market value of your car.  I generally explain this to clients as if you were going to sell your vehicle on the morning of the accident before the collision occurred, what would be the price that you would accept for the vehicle. The way we generally determine this number is to look at what we call in the business “comps“. This means comparable vehicles for sale. Most common vehicles can be searched easily on the Internet. Simply enter the year, make, and specific model of your vehicle and look for similar vehicles for sale. You will generally find a significant range in value often thousands of dollars depending on the vehicle.  We look for higher value comps that are as close to our client’s vehicle as possible to determine the fair market value. You want to compare things like options; for example whether it has leather or cloth seats, whether it is turbo or not turbo, whether it has navigation or not, as well as mileage.

Once you locate these comparable for sale vehicles you want to print this information and make sure you include the name of the dealership or private seller on the documentation you print as a way to reach them to verify the comparable sale. You can compare these with the amount the insurance company is offering you for the total loss of your vehicle and it should be comparable to these numbers.

WHAT IS GAP INSURANCE

On a related note,  when purchasing a new or newer vehicle, we urge our clients to obtain GAP insurance on their car loan. If the dealer offers this to you, you can research to compare  rates with other carriers to make a comparison to what the dealer is offering you when you are buying the car. You can do this on your phone at the dealership while in the process of purchasing the car. GAP insurance is insurance that protects you in the event that your car is an accident,  is a total loss, and has even fair market value of less than the loan balance. Your insurance company or the other side will only pay the fair market value of the vehicle. Sometimes that is less than what is owed on the car. You could reach a situation where you still owe thousands of dollars on a vehicle you no longer have because the value was less than the loan. Unfortunately, this can and does happen. That is why we urge clients to have a GAP insurance to pay the gap in the fair market value and the amount of the loan balance. If you’ve already purchased a new vehicle and did not obtain gap insurance,  it is something that you can add and we urge you to do that.

CALL US AT THEONELAWYER.com

By contacting a lawyer immediately, you can receive the most money for your vehicle. At my office, we are happy to handle the total loss of your vehicle at no cost along with your personal injury claim.  Having worked in the insurance industry as an attorney for 9 years before opening our boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I reviewed thousands of total loss claims. With extensive experience in the insurance field, I can help you review your total loss to maximize the money you get for your vehicle.

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters and have over 15 years of experience in reviewing insurance policies and in Nevada insurance law.   If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

THEY CANNOT RAISE YOUR CAR INSURANCE RATES IN NEVADA IF THE ACCIDENT IS NOT YOUR FAULT

FIVE FACTS ABOUT CAR INSURANCE RATES IN NEVADA

1) If you are in a car accident and it is not your fault, your insurance company cannot raise your rates for paying your damages.

2) If you make a claim on your uninsured motorist coverage because someone without insurance hits you, your insurance company cannot raise your rates.

3) Your  insurance company cannot cancel your policy if you make a claim that is not your fault.

4) Insurance companies refer to at fault accidents as a “chargeable” offense.

5) Your insurance company may try to attribute a “small percentage of fault” against you to raise your rates for a claim.  Be sure to verify that you were not found at fault on your claim with your adjuster and make them send you a letter to verify that you were not at fault.

The statutes on this issue are pretty clear in the state of Nevada but relatively unknown. An insurance company cannot refuse to issue your policy or renew your policy for an accident or claim that was not your fault. They also, in turn, cannot cancel your policy for an accident that was not your fault. Over the years many clients have advised us that their rates have gone up immediately following an accident. Many insurers have policies that are nationwide and this policy is illegal in Nevada. At the law office of TheOneLawyer.com, we make sure that our clients are treated fairly by their own insurance companies and that they are not charged with an accident that is clearly not their fault. In fact, I have seen insurance companies over the years that have sent the insured a letter advising them that they were 5% or 10% at fault for the collision when they had not even reviewed the police report, seen photographs or taken statements. This is why it is critical to have an attorney fight for you from the beginning anytime you are involved in a car accident. There are many aspects of car accident law that inexperienced attorneys are not aware of. This is one of them. At the car accident law offices of TheOneLawyer.com, we make sure our clients are treated properly by their own insurance company as well as receive the compensation they deserve. The statutes and Nevada are pretty clear on these issues and 

NRS 687B .35 states as follows:

NRS 687B.385  Refusal to issue, cancellation, nonrenewal or increase in premium due to claims for which insured was not at fault, claims for which insurer made no payment or recovered entirety of payment or inquiries relating to a claim prohibited.  An insurer shall not refuse to issue, cancel, refuse to renew or increase the premium for renewal of a policy of motor vehicle insurance covering private passenger cars or commercial vehicles as a result of any:

1.  Claims made under any policy of insurance with respect to which the insured was not at fault;

2.  Claims made under any policy of insurance for which the insurer has not made any payment or for which the insurer recovered the entirety of the insurer’s payment on the claim by means of salvage, subrogation or another mechanism; or

3.  Inquiries made regarding an actual or potential claim under any policy of insurance regarding:

     (a) The existence of insurance coverage for any matter; or

      (b) Any hypothetical or informational matter pertaining to insurance.

      (Added to NRS by 1987, 1063; A 1997, 30332017, 2354)

In addition to the Nevada revised Statutes,  there is also the Nevada Administrative Code. The administrative code outlines specific rules and regulations that insurance companies must follow that accompany the Nevada Revised Statutes. The Nevada Administrative Code contains specific regulations that govern administrative bodies in the state of Nevada such as the Department of Insurance. Nevada administrative code provision 687B.850 further outlines and details the rules regarding accidents that are not the fault of the policyholder. Insurance terms are referred to as chargeable or non-chargeable events and referred to in the statute below:

POLICIES OF MOTOR VEHICLE INSURANCE

NAC 687B.850  Chargeable accidents: Restrictions on authority of insurer; filing and use of definition. (NRS 679B.130687B.385)

1.  An insurer shall not cancel, refuse to renew or increase the premium charge for the liability coverage under a policy of motor vehicle insurance upon renewal of the policy of motor vehicle insurance because of an accident that is not a chargeable accident.

2.  Each insurer shall file with the Division its definition of a “chargeable accident” and shall use the filed definition. The insurer’s definition of a “chargeable accident” may include only those accidents for which the insured is 50 percent or more at fault.

3.  Each filing of a rate for a policy of motor vehicle insurance submitted to the Division must define a “chargeable accident” in terms of a monetary amount of damage.

4.  An insurer may not define a claim made under the comprehensive portion of a policy of motor vehicle insurance as a chargeable accident in order to increase the premium for the policy or to cancel the policy, but the insurer may use a series of such claims to discontinue comprehensive coverage or to offer a higher deductible for comprehensive coverage upon the renewal of the policy.

When I advise clients they need to make an uninsured or underinsured motorist claim on their own insurance, they are often hesitant to do so, fearing their carrier will either raise their rates, or cancel the policy altogether. However, Nevada, as outlined, has a statute exactly on point, precluding insurance companies from doing either. An uninsured motorist policy provides insurance coverage for the negligence of a driver that causes damages who either has no insurance, or cannot be located.  In such instances, the claimant’s own insurance company provides insurance up to the policy limits for this uninsured driver. An underinsured motorist policy provides coverage for a driver who has insufficient insurance coverage to pay for all of the damages he or she caused.  In such instances, the claimant’s own insurance policy provides additional coverage over and above the negligence driver’s liability policy, up to the policy limits.

The plain language of the statute and code preclude insurance companies in Nevada from raising rates for people who make a UM/UIM (no fault on the part of the insured) claim. The Nevada Supreme Court has upheld the statute against the insurance companies challenge. See Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Ins. Co. of America,  16 P.3d 1069, 117 Nev. 4 (2001) (holding the statute that prohibits an insurer from canceling, refusing to renew, or increasing the premium for a policy of casualty or property insurance as a result of claims with respect to which the insured was not at fault is not facially unconstitutional under the state due process and takings clauses)

NRS 687B.385 applies to policies where insurers attempts to cancel or increase premiums because an insured has filed a claim for which the insured is not at fault. With nearly 15% of the drivers in the Nevada being uninsured, and most not having sufficient insurance, when you are in an accident, it is important that you contact an attorney who has experience exploring all policies available for recovery.  TheOneLawyer.com has the experience, and provides free initial consultations. 

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters and have over 15 years of experience in Nevada insurance law and reviewing insurance policies.  If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

GOVERNOR SISOLAK HELPS NEVADANS BY SIGNING HEALTH BILL PRACTICES BILL

FIVE FACTS ABOUT THE EMERGENCY CARE BILL HOSPITALS MUST FOLLOW

  1. An Out of Network provider cannot charge more than the copayment,  coinsurance or  deductible required of your network providers for emergency care;
  2. If you are stable, an out-of-network hospital must transfer you to an in network provider within 24 hour of admission;
  3. If the hospital had a contract within the preceding 12 months that was terminated, the health insurer is required to pay as if they were still on the plan and the hospital must accept.
  4. Hospitals are required to negotiate directly with the insurance company;
  5. Medicaid patients are exempt from the bill. 

Nevada Gov. Steve Sisolak has signed a law to protect patients from “surprise medical bills” after emergency treatment.  The legislation puts limits on the cost an out-of-network provider can charge a patient for specific medically necessary emergency services. That cost under this legislation is limited to a patient’s insurance copay, coinsurance or deductible.  The bill has a provision for a process that determines the amount of reimbursement from insurers out-of-network providers can charge for emergency services. In addition, it is a required process for out-of-network providers to transfer patients to a hospital that is in the patient’s insurance network within 24 hours. 

This  legislative action that reforms billing practices was signed into law by Governor Sisolak on May 15, 2019 and  limits the amount a provider of health care may charge a person who has health insurance for certain medical emergency services provided when the provider is out-of-network.   The bill is comprised of several sections including a provision that requires an insurer to arrange for the transfer of a person who has health insurance to an in-network facility under certain circumstances.  It also has provisions for determining the amount that an insurer (aka the health insurance company) is required to pay an out of network provider for specific medically necessary emergency services. When such services are provided to a patient, there are also provisions  that require the reporting of certain information related to the treatment. 

The complete bill can be reviewed at: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/NELIS/REL/80th2019/Bill/6896/Text

Currently, under Nevada  Law, a hospital is required  to provide emergency services and treatment  (including admission to the hospital when needed) to certain  patients, regardless of the financial status of the patient.  (See NRS 439B.410) Existing law further requires specific major hospitals  to reduce total billed charges by at least 30 percent for hospital services provided  to certain patients who have no insurance or other contractual provision for the payment  of the charges by a third party, which is an insurer. (NRS 439B.260) The bill defines the phrase  “out of network provider” “as for a particular person covered by a policy of health insurance, a provider of health care or medical facility that has not entered into a contract with a third party for the provision of health care to persons who are covered by a policy of insurance issued  by that third party.”

This bill is a much needed addition to Nevada Healthcare law and  protect patients from “surprise” medical bills. Much more healthcare reform is needed in Nevada to protect patients.  Below is an outline of the recently passed legislation: 

Section 11 — This section exempts  services provided to recipients  of Medicaid from the provisions  of this bill.

Section 13 –This section exempts a critical access hospital and a person covered by a policy of insurance sold outside Nevada from the provisions of this bill.

Section 14–This section prohibits an out of network provider from collecting  against a person covered by a policy of health insurance an  amount for medically necessary emergency services that exceeds the  copayment, coinsurance or deductible required by that policy. In addition, Section 14 also requires an out of network hospital  or independent center for emergency medical care that provides medically necessary emergency services to a covered person to notify the third party that provides coverage for the person that:

(1) the  person is  receiving such  services at the  facility; and 

(2) the  person’s emergency  medical condition is  stabilized not later than  24                                 

      hours  after such stabilization  occurs. 

Section  14 further requires  the third party to  arrange for such a 

transfer to an in network hospital or independent center for emergency medical care 

not later than 24 hours after receiving such notice. If an out of network hospital or independent center for emergency medical care had  a contract as an in network hospital or independent center for emergency medical care with the third party that provides coverage  for the covered person within the 12 months immediately preceding the provision of medically necessary emergency services to a covered  person.

section  15 of  this  bill requires  the third party to pay, and the hospital or independent center for emergency medical care to accept,  as compensation for those services an amount based on the amount that would have been paid for those services under the most recent contract between the third party and the hospital or independent center for emergency medical care. If an out of network hospital  or independent center for emergency medical care did not have a contract as with the third party that provides coverage for the covered person as an in network hospital or independent center for emergency medical care during that time, section 15requires the third party to pay to the provider an amount that the  third party has determined to be fair and reasonable as payment for the medically necessary emergency services.

Section  16 has similar provisions   applicable to out of network   providers, other than hospitals   and independent centers for emergency medical care. Specifically, if an out of network provider had a contract as an in network provider with the third party that provides coverage  for the covered person within the 12 months immediately preceding the provision of medically necessary emergency services to a covered person

that was not terminated by the third party for cause, this section requires the 

third party  to pay, and  the provider to  accept, as compensation  for those services an 

amount based on the amount that would have been paid for those services under the

most recent contract between the third party and the provider. If an out of network 

provider did not have a contract with the third party that provides coverage for the 

covered person as an in network provider during that time or if such a contract was terminated by the third party for cause section 16 requires the third party to pay to  the provider an amount that the third party has determined to be fair and reasonable as payment for the medically necessary emergency services. 

Section 17 – Requires that the out of network  providers request from the third  party an additional amount which, when combined with the amount previously paid, the out of network  provider is willing to accept as payment in full and if not paid, the parties are required to submit the dispute to binding arbitration. This section also states that interest cannot accrue on a claim during the arbitration process. 

Sections 21 – 27of this bill make conforming changes.   Sections 17, 19and 20 of this bill provide for the  confidentiality of the decisions of arbitrators and documents associated with arbitration.

Section 18  of this bill authorizes certain health insurers not included in this bill to opt in to the provisions of the bill. 

Section 19 of  this  bill provides  for the annual  reporting of certain  information concerning arbitrations conducted. 

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer.com, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters.  We have over 15 years of experience in reviewing insurance policies and in Nevada insurance law. If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

HOSPITAL BILLING PRACTICES THEY MUST FOLLOW

FIVE FACTS ABOUT HOSPITAL BILLING PRACTICES THEY MUST FOLLOW

  1. Hospitals Must Bill your Health Insurance Before They Can Bill you on a Hospital Bill;
  1.  Interest on Past Due Medical Mills Cannot Exceed the Prime Interest Rate;

3) Hospitals Cannot Charge you Late Fees for the Unpaid Amount;

4) Unfortunately they Can Charge Collection or Attorney’s Fees if They Make Efforts to Recover;

5) Most Importantly Hospitals Cannot move to Collect Against your car Insurance or 

Any Other Insurance or Monies that you have if They are Contracted with Your Health Insurer;

As a personal injury attorney in Henderson,  Nevada in Las Vegas Nevada for over 20 years, I am still shocked at the tactics that hospitals use against patients. Never provide your car insurance information or any other insurance information or personal information (with the exception of name, address, date of birth, social security number) Only provide  your health insurance information to a hospital. I have seen hospitals take clients medical payments coverage and still bill the insurance many times and it’s illegal but that does not mean anything to some hospitals. The Nevada Revised Statutes clearly prohibit this behavior. Even though this is an illegal practice in the state of Nevada, it happens. Unfortunately, It happens a lot because patients don’t know the law . I have seen hospitals immediately send a bill to a client’s medical payments coverage repeatedly. 

As a quick review from past blogs, “medical payments coverage” is a coverage you can purchase with your car insurance. It is coverage that pays for your medical bills directly without co-pays or wait. It is a very helpful coverage to have and we urge all of our clients at TheOneLawyer.com  to have this coverage on their policy. It is usually for a limited amount , generally anywhere from $1000 we’ve seen as high as $50,000, and it pays your medical bills or copays. Fortunately , it is generally a somewhat inexpensive coverage to add to your policy similar to rental coverage.  We also urge our clients to have rental coverage. Medical payments coverage is important as it will cover all of your co-pays and if you are taken to an out of network facility it will cover bills related there too. 

Sadly, we have seen unscrupulous hospitals immediately send a bill to client’s medical payments coverage carrier demanding the entire amount of the policy and the insurer will send the entire policy amount to the hospital.  Coverage that is supposed to cover all of your co-pays and deductibles. In addition, the hospital turns around and bills the health insurance company and takes those funds as well. Don’t let this happen. That is why it is important to contact an experienced personal injury lawyer at TheOneLawyer.com  and talk to attorney Laura Payne-Hunt , Esq. who will not let this happen to her clients. We immediately put the hospital and the insurance company on notice not to bill medical payments coverage. We also notify the auto medical payments coverage insurer that no funds are to be paid on our client’s behalf from the  medical payments policy without the direct express authorization of our office.

 If you are in an automobile accident it is important to contact counsel immediately to maximize the coverage that you have in place.  At TheOneLawyer.com , we will make sure that you will receive the maximum award possible for your pain and suffering as well as your medical bills. The statutes outlined below show the rights and remedies that you have under Nevada law against the hospital that renders treatment.  Watch for our future blog regarding recent legislation signed into law by governor Steve Sisolak further protecting Nevadans against unscrupulous hospital billing practices.

NRS 449.757  Limitations on efforts of hospitals to collect; date for accrual of interest; rate of interest; limitations on additional fees.

1.  When a person receives hospital care, the hospital must not proceed with any efforts to collect on any amount owed to the hospital for the hospital care from the responsible party, other than for any copayment or deductible, if the responsible party has health insurance or may be eligible for Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program or any other public program which may pay all or part of the bill, until the hospital has submitted a bill to the health insurance company or public program and the health insurance company or public program has made a determination concerning payment of the claim.

2.  Collection efforts may begin and interest may begin to accrue on any amount owed to the hospital for hospital care which remains unpaid by the responsible party not sooner than 30 days after the responsible party is sent a bill by mail stating the amount that he or she is responsible to pay which has been established after receiving a determination concerning payment of the claim by any insurer or public program and after applying any discounts. Interest must accrue at a rate which does not exceed the prime rate at the largest bank in Nevada as ascertained by the Commissioner of Financial Institutions on January 1 or July 1, as the case may be, immediately preceding the date on which the payment becomes due, plus 2 percent. The rate must be adjusted accordingly on each January 1 and July 1 thereafter until the payment is satisfied.

3.  Except for the interest authorized pursuant to subsection 2 and any court costs and attorney’s fees awarded by a court, no other fees may be charged concerning the amount that remains unpaid, including, without limitation, collection fees, other attorney’s fees or any other fees or costs.

      (Added to NRS by 2007, 1497; A 2011, 1525)

      NRS 449.758  Limitations on efforts of hospital to collect when hospital has contractual agreement with third party that provides health coverage for care provided; exception.

1.  Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, if a hospital provides hospital care to a person who has a policy of health insurance issued by a third party that provides health coverage for care provided at that hospital and the hospital has a contractual agreement with the third party, the hospital shall proceed with any efforts to collect on any amount owed to the hospital for the hospital care in accordance with the provisions of NRS 449.757 and shall not collect or attempt to collect that amount from:

(a) Any proceeds or potential proceeds of a civil action brought by or on behalf of the patient, including, without limitation, any amount awarded for medical expenses; or

(b) An insurer other than a health insurer, including, without limitation, an insurer that provides coverage under a policy of casualty or property insurance.

      2.  This section does not apply to:

      (a) Amounts owed to the hospital under the policy of health insurance that are not collectible; or

      (b) Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program or any other public program which may pay all or part of the bill.

3.  This section does not limit any rights of a patient to contest an attempt to collect an amount owed to a hospital, including, without limitation, contesting a lien obtained by a hospital.

      4.  As used in this section, “third party” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 439B.260.

      (Added to NRS by 2011, 1524)

NRS 449.759  Manner of collection.  A hospital, or any person acting on its behalf who seeks to collect a debt from a responsible party for any amount owed to the hospital for hospital care must collect the debt in a professional, fair and lawful manner. When collecting such a debt, the hospital or other person acting on its behalf must act in accordance with sections 803 to 812, inclusive, of the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692a to 1692j, inclusive, even if the hospital or person acting on its behalf is not otherwise subject to the provisions of that Act.

      (Added to NRS by 2007, 1498)

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters and have over 15 years of experience in reviewing insurance policies.   If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

BUSINESS OWNERS- WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT INSURANCE

FIVE FACTS BUSNIESS OWNERS NEED TO  KNOW                           ABOUT BUSINESS INSURANCE

  1. Your Homeowners insurance will not cover a home based business without being added onto the policy;
  2. There are several types of business insurance to consider;
  3. It is important to know what your risks are when buying insurance;
  4. Business insurance is not one size fits all;
  5. Talk to an agent when buying your business insurance and email to confirm your understanding of the coverages you are buying and save the email!!!

Businesses encounter various risks every day.  Business insurance can protect your business from risks such as lawsuits, property damage, theft, vandalism, loss of income, employee injuries, and guest accidents. To protect against these various losses, a business owner can purchase different kinds of insurance including Commercial liability, Commercial property, Commercial auto and Workers’ compensation insurance.  These coverages are included in various business policies. Most business’ have insurance to protect against potential claims against them. 

Typical business polices include property and casualty, commercial general liability insurance (“CGL”), workers’ compensation, professional liability aka error and omissions policies (“E&O”) and commercial automobile insurance. More specialized insurance available includes employment practices liability insurance (“EPLI”) and insurance against patent and trademark infringement. These policies are intended to apply to either basic, known business risks (such as loss of a commercial building or liability from a car accident) or are tailored to specific risks (such as EPLI).  The following is a basic outline of the various types of business insurance that every business owner should understand before opening their doors.  

A Business Owner’s Policy (BOP) Is the Most common General Policy

A BOP policy combine’s business property and business liability insurance into one business insurance policy. BOP insurance covers things like fire, theft, bodily injury or property damage.  They can also cover data breach and other specialized coverages. Customizing your BOP Insurance is an imperative first step when insuring your business and one you should consult an attorney regarding prior to purchase.  At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to assist you in reviewing your business coverage.

Specialty General Liability Insurance (SGL)

Specialty general liability insurance (SGL) protects businesses that are subject to higher-hazard liabilities, such as: Manufacturers, Wholesaler-Distributors, and Importers.  These policies protect against catastrophic exposures. Without the proper coverage, a business with high hazard exposures could be destroyed by a lawsuit for a defective product or injury from the product

Workers’ Compensation Insurance

Workers’ compensation insurance, also known as workman’s comp or workers’ comp, gives employees benefits for work-related injury or illness. These benefits cover their medical care, replace most of their lost wages if they take time to recover, provide disability benefits and pay for their funeral if they lose their life tragically.

Employment Practices Liability Insurance (EPLI

The is liability insurance that covers wrongful acts arising from the employment process including interviewing, work related and termination. The most  common claims covered under type of policy are wrongful termination, discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation. EPLI policies generally require that covered “wrongful acts” be directed against employees or applicants for employment by the company insured.  In fact, coverage for third-party employment practices liability claims is precluded under most commercial general liability (CGL) policies and hence, EPLI is needed. Companies engaged in customer-intensive businesses, such as retail stores, airlines, or car rental companies, are most susceptible to third-party liability claims which often involve customer complaints of harassment or discrimination.  Third-party liability coverage is often available by endorsement for additional premium and should be considered by businesses that are subject to such exposures such as the rogue employee refusing to serve customers based on race or religion.

Home-based businesses.

Many entrepreneurs begin their small businesses in their own homes. It is important to know that homeowner’s policies don’t cover home-based businesses in the way commercial property insurance does. If are starting or operating a business out of your home, ask your insurance agent for additional insurance to cover your equipment and inventory in the event of a loss.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/241026

Commercial General Liability Insurance Polices  (“CGL”),

Most CGL policies have two types of coverage: Part A and Part B. Part A provides insurance against two types of injuries: “bodily injury” and “property damage,” but only if arising from an “accident” or “occurrence.” CGL policies protect against claims arising from accidental or fortuitous events called “occurrences.”  The term “bodily injury,” as defined in an insurance policy, includes physical injury to the body. Coverage does not always apply to non-physical emotional or mental harm caused by an employee of the insured. A CGL policy covers physical damage caused to the property of third parties by the insured as well.  

Coverage Part A only includes actions involving “accidents” or “occurrences,” business torts based on a negligence theory are potentially coverable.  However, business torts arising from intentional acts are typically not covered. In these situation coverage may exist for negligent misrepresentation, negligently performed faulty workmanship, employment actions sounding in negligence (negligent hiring, negligent retention, negligent supervision) and other negligence causes of action (failure to warn, unsafe premises and negligent procedure).

Different from Coverage Part A, Coverage Part B does not depend on the existence of an “accident” or “occurrence,” so it may cover damages arising from intentional conduct not otherwise excluded. While the insuring clause of Coverage Part A is expressed in general terms, Coverage Part B covers only specific listed acts committed by the insured.  Some examples of such enumerated acts may include false imprisonment, malicious prosecution, wrongful eviction, defamation, invasion of the right to privacy and copyright and trademark infringement.

It is also possible that there may be Coverage under Part B for liability arising from the insured’s “advertising activity.”  “Advertising activity” has been found in cases of TV, radio, newspaper and magazine advertising.   But not all marketing activities constitute “advertising.” There must be a causal connection between the advertising activity and the injury. The sale of an infringing product by itself is not sufficient to satisfy the causal connection requirement. The infringement must be committed in the advertisement on its face, and not just in the sale of a product, in order to be covered.

Every business owner should review their insurance coverage’s with a broker or an attorney to determine whether they  have sufficient coverage not only for the typical risks that the company may face, but also for the unexpected, claims for business torts that sometimes happen.

WHAT DO THESE COVERAGES MEAN 

Many attorneys and clients think of every tort claim as personal injury action.  But for purposes of insurance coverage, many tort actions arising from an automobile collision, a slip-and-fall, a product liability claim or a defective construction suit are matters of bodily injury and fall under Coverage A of the standard commercial general liability (CGL) policy purchased by most businesses.   Most of the litigation concerns Coverage for bodily injury. Coverage under Part B usually pertains to personal and advertising injury liability and is often overlooked when seeking coverage under a business policy.

 Although obtaining insurance under Coverage B requires more diligence by a policyholder or counsel for defendants seeking coverage, it can provide important protection, including a defense against a plaintiff’s claim.  If one claim in a complaint is possibly covered, the CGL insurer must defend the entire case. It was this aspect of insurance law that enabled Los Angeles Lakers owner Dr. Jerry Buss to obtain an entire defense of what was largely a business/contract dispute (26 of the claims in the complaint); something ordinarily not covered under a standard form CGL policy. But a 27th claim for defamation implicated the personal injury provisions of the policy, and Buss received a complete defense to the suit (which eventually settled) that involved more than $1 million in counsel fees. The insurer sought reimbursement for the defense costs that did not involve the defamation claim. In Buss v. Superior Court, 939 P.2d 766 (Cal. 1997), the California Supreme Court stated that insurers had this right, provided they could adequately differentiate what was spent defending the respective claims, a position dividing the jurisdictions and rejected by the Supreme Courts of Illinois and Pennsylvania.1 Even if Nevada should eventually follow the Buss approach,2 a policyholder can benefit in this type of situation by at least obtaining an insurer-provided defense and delay its ultimate payment of some portion of counsel fees.

In practicality, it would be difficult to correctly separate attorney’s fees spent on a covered claim versus one that is not covered.  Under the California approach, the insurer defending the claim is forced to pay for the entire defense. Thus, a defendant faced with a lawsuit that looks like a commercial dispute without bodily injury or tangible, physical property damage and therefore what looks like no CGL policy should look for an allegation such as trespassing, defamation or misleading advertising claims that could trigger Coverage B.  The policy states that the CGL insurer will pay “those sums that the insured becomes legally obligated to pay” as damages, because of “personal and advertising injury.” 

A fairly accurate summary is that Coverage B applies where a policyholder is accused of negligently or recklessly disparaging a claimant or defaming a plaintiff (defamation that is not within an exclusion) or misleading advertising (such as causing consumer confusion, or hurting a competitor) that does not involve copyright or patent infringement. The Nevada Supreme Court law on Coverage B is limited. I only know one insurance coverage case regarding “advertising injury,” and that is dicta.    A hand full of District of Nevada federal court opinions mention the term. The substantive local precedent that exists has tended to support insurer efforts to limit coverage and is adverse to Plaintiffs. Mention of personal injury in case law is much more extensive, but in these decisions, the court is almost always referring to bodily injury rather than the insurance policy concept of personal injury coverage. When instituting litigation, under a business policy, counsel should always review all the defendant’s liability insurance policies and consider coverage under the obscure concepts of personal injury to ascertain if there is a loss that will be covered for their client.

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters and have over 15 years of experience in reviewing insurance policies.   If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

Hope You are Following our YouTube Channel “Ask My Lawyer Mom”

We are 6 weeks into our YouTube channel, “Ask my Lawyer Mom” at TheOneLawyer.com and we are excited about the feedback we are getting.  With large scale marketing filling the airways and billboards line the roadways, we hope to provide real legal information backed by 20 years’ experience in a fun, short, entertaining format.  These large scale and expensive advertising tools try to push consumers to make decisions based on image rather than character, experience and integrity. When choosing a professional, it is critical to choose someone that is experienced, has your best interests at the forefront and someone living in the same community with similar issues and concerns.   When advertising costs exceed seven figures, the practice becomes less about clients and more about money.

In keeping with our mantra, we hope to provide information to keep our clients informed on the laws that impact their lives, while at the same time, providing information to assist in keeping you and your family safe. In the spirit of providing information to our current and potential clients, our YouTube channel provides thru the series will be entitled “Ask My Lawyer Mom.”  Our channel will consist of short interview videos on specific topics that impact our clients. We will welcome input from our viewers for any questions you have and hope to make our channel interactive and informative while at the same time entertaining. Our videos will be supplemented by the blogs on our website TheOneLawyer.com to provide more detailed information.

At the Henderson accident injury law offices of TheOneLawyer.com we are excited to start this new chapter of video blogging. Finding accurate and relevant information on the Internet can be difficult with the sea of advertising and misinformation out there. It is our hope that you will turn to our channel for a source of reliable and accurate information to answer your questions. We also look forward to questions from our viewers. We will provide accurate and helpful consumer tips to allow you to make informed decisions when traveling or should you become involved in an accident.  We are excited to reach a large number of potential clients and assist you and your family in locating the right legal services and answering your consumer questions regarding the law. As long time community members, we have been asked thousands of questions by clients and potential clients over the years and provided volumes of information. It is my hope that this information can be presented to our clients for easy access and assistance in a fun, family-friendly, entertaining format.  

A mass tort is a class action lawsuit where someone has been impacted by a product that was found to be unsafe to be in the marketplace.  We handle these claims and partner with national firms to provide our clients the best representation possible at the local level and national level at no additional cost to our clients.  It is a sad reality that companies often put profits before consumer safety. This can be anything from pharmaceutical companies to cosmetic companies to every day products and even to professional‘s such as attorneys and investment companies.  As a small law firm we have a tradition of putting our individual client’s interests first and we look forward to continuing that tradition into the new decade. 

At TheOneLawyer.com, we look forward to providing information in helping our clients stay safe and informed. Even more so, we look forward to continuing our long-standing tradition of representing every client on a personal, compassionate, and professional level. We strive to treat every client as though they are our only client. Your safety and that of your families is important to us and it is our hope that if you or  a loved one is in need of an attorney you will contact our office. Even if you need an attorney in another field we have a great network of trusted professionals and are happy to make a referral.

If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or if a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters and have over 15 years of experience in reviewing insurance policies.   If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years.  Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve. Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032. 

CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN NEVADA, YES REALLY

States Where Corporal Punishment is Legal and Percentage of Schools that report Using Corporal Punishment

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is nihms862245f1.jpg

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5766273/

FIVE FACTS TO UNDERSTAND ABOUT CORPORAL PUNISHMENT IN NEVADA

  1. Corporal punishment in Nevada Public Schools was legal until 1993;
  2.  Corporal punishment by parents is legal in Nevada;
  3. Growing up in Nevada teachers used to have paddles at their desk;
  4. Corporal punishment should never inflict substantial bodily harm on a child Restraint should be use by parents using corporal punishment;
  5. Corporal punishment is currently legal in  Nevada Private Schools ;

The United States is one of only two industrialized nations that currently  allow corporal punishment in schools in some states. Although it has not been  legal in Nevada since 1993, public schools in 19 states and in private schools in 48 states still allow corporal punishment.  According to reports, over 160,000 children, from preschool through 12th grade, were subjected to corporal punishment in public schools in the 2013-2014 school year, according to the U.S. Department of Education.  It is more common in some states with 85 percent of school districts in Alabama, Arkansas and Mississippi reporting that they used corporal punishment that year. Corporal punishment remains legal in the United States  because of a Supreme Court decision that is over 40 years old. In 1977, the Supreme Court ruled in Ingraham v. Wright that corporal punishment in public schools was constitutional, which meant that each state could make its own rules when physically disciplining students. No other case regarding corporal punishment in schools has made it to the Supreme Court since then.   The practice remains legal in nineteen states shown on the map above.  

What is Corporal Punishment in Nevada? 

Corporal punishment is defined by the  Nevada Revised Statutes at NRS 433.546 as follows:

Corporal punishment” means the intentional infliction of physical pain, including, without limitation, hitting, pinching or striking.  (Added to NRS by 1999, 3230)

Growing up in Nevada, corporal punishment in schools was accepted.  In fact, when I was a kid in the eighties, some teachers and the principal had paddles to be used on students hanging in plain sight for students to see.  Some teachers even had paddles with holes drilled in them for a little added velocity. In 1960, the statute (which was in effect until 1993) read as follows:

 Section 1.  Chapter 392 of NRS is hereby amended by adding thereto a new section which shall read as follows:

      1.  The legislature declares:

      (a) That the use of corporal punishment is to be discouraged in the public schools, and only after all other methods of discipline have proven ineffective should a pupil be administered corporal punishment.

      (b) That judgment and discretion are to be used in all punishment, corporal and otherwise, and maximum use should be made of available school counseling and psychological services.

      2.  Subject to the limitations contained in this section, the board of trustees of every school district shall adopt rules and regulations authorizing teachers, principals and other certificated personnel to administer reasonable corporal or other punishment to pupils when such action is deemed an appropriate corrective measure.

      3.  Parents and guardians shall be notified before, or as soon as possible after, corporal punishment is administered.

      4.  No corporal punishment shall be administered on or about the head or face of any pupil, but this limitation shall not prohibit any teacher, principal or other certificated person from defending himself if attacked by a pupil.

      5.  Nothing contained in this section shall be construed or interpreted to indicate that the teachers, principals and other certificated personnel have not heretofore had the authority and the right to administer reasonable corporal or other punishment to pupils.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/50th1960/Stats196001.html#Stats196001page60

This statute remained in effect with minor alterations allowing corporal punishment in public schools until 1993 when it was amended as follows:

NRS 392.4633 is hereby amended to read as follows:

      392.4633  1.  Corporal punishment [may] must not be administered upon a pupil in any public school.

      2.  Subsection 1 does not prohibit any teacher, principal or other licensed person from defending himself if attacked by a pupil.

      3.  A person may report the use of corporal punishment on a pupil to the agency which provides child welfare services in the county in which the school district is located. If the agency determines that the complaint is substantiated, the agency shall forward the complaint to the Department, the appropriate local law enforcement agency within the county and the district attorney’s office within the county for further investigation.

      4.  As used in this section [, “corporal punishment”] :

      (a) “Agency which provides child welfare services” has the meaning ascribed to it in NRS 432B.030.

      (b) “Corporal punishment” means the intentional infliction of physical pain upon or the physical restraint of a pupil for disciplinary purposes. The term does not include the use of reasonable and necessary force:

      [(a)](1) To quell a disturbance that threatens physical injury to any person or the destruction of property;

      [(b)](2) To obtain possession of a weapon or other dangerous object within a pupil’s control;

      [(c)](3) For the purpose of self-defense or the defense of another person; or

      [(d)](4) To escort a disruptive pupil who refuses to go voluntarily with the proper authorities.

https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Statutes/75th1993/Stats199310.html#Stats199310page921

MODERN USE OF CORPORAL PUNISHMENT

However, parents have the right to discipline their children as long as it is reasonable and does not rise to the level of child abuse  by inflicting substantial bodily harm. Corporal punishment in Nevada is defined as a form of child discipline that involves physical pain. This is traditionally considered to be spanking or hitting  a child using certain objects meant to sting or cause temporary pain. In Nevada, although this type of punishment was legal in public schools while I was growing up, it became illegal in schools in 1993.  Many are shocked that corporal punishment was legal in Nevada schools, although not really used at that point, until 1993.  

https://safesupportivelearning.ed.gov/sites/default/files/discipline-compendium/Nevada%20School%20Discipline%20Laws%20and%20Regulations.pdf

Although corporal punishment was outlawed in schools in Nevada in 1993, it is legal to use in the home.  NRS 392.4633 states that   that “no corporal punishment shall be imposed in a pupil in any school. “  Therefore, this law applies to discipline in the schools but not in the home.   Although in this modern age, it is sad but necessary to distinguish that physical attacked is not classified as corporal punishment if physical force or infliction of pain was used to obtain a deadly weapon from a student, stop a student from harming another person, or for self-defense.

Difference between corporal punishment and child abuse in Nevada

Parents are permitted to discipline their children by spanking as long as  you don’t cause injury to the child.  Corporal punishment is justified discipline for unacceptable behavior.  Child abuse is inflicting significant bodily injury upon a child. It is important to be cautious and restrained in using corporal punishment sparingly without great force.   

At the Law Offices of Laura Payne-Hunt, TheOneLawyer, we provide professional and personal service to each and every one of our clients on various legal matters. Although we handle personal injury matters, with 20 years’ experience, we can refer you to specialists in most fields of law that we have personal knowledge regarding their ability.   If you have a question regarding any type of personal injury or paying your medical bills from an accident, please don’t hesitate to call the offices of TheOneLawyer.com and speak directly to attorney Laura Marie Payne-Hunt, Esq. a Henderson Injury Attorney for over 15 years. Laura is recognized as one of Nevada’s Top 100 Lawyers. She has the experience and knowledge to obtain the maximum settlement you deserve.  Please call our office if you or a loved one is injured. We can make sure that you receive the care you need and deserve and advise on how to preserve evidence.  

At our office, we are experienced in helping injured victims get the compensation they are entitled to.  Insurance companies never have the best interest of the injured person at the top of their priorities. They want to pay as little on every claim as possible.  Having worked for an insurance company as an attorney for 9 years before opening my boutique law firm specializing in helping injured people, I have reviewed thousands of auto accident claims and policy provisions.   

At the Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury law offices of TheOneLaweyer.com, Laura Marie Payne-Hunt and her staff are here to help you and your family in the event that accidents and tragedies occur.  For any of your legal needs, do not hesitate to contact our Henderson and Las Vegas Accident injury offices. TheOneLawyer.com is a boutique, family owned law firm that specializes in helping injured people and the community of Las Vegas and Henderson Nevada with legal issues involving auto accidents, wrongful deaths, slip and falls, truck accidents, injuries to children, bicycle accidents, dog bites, product liability claims, and all types of injury claims.  Please do not hesitate to call us anytime you have a legal question or you or a loved one has sustained an injury at 702-450-(HUNT) 4868 and text 24/7 at 702-600-0032.