Last Updated: August 24, 2026
Under Nevada law, lack of informed consent falls within professional negligence under Chapter 41A of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). NRS 41A.100 requires expert testimony on the standard of care, NRS 41A.110 makes a qualifying signed statement conclusive proof of consent, NRS 41A.120 supplies the emergency implied-consent rule, and NRS 41A.097 sets filing deadlines restructured by Assembly Bill 404 in 2023.
Nevada Supreme Court precedent fills in the rest. Allan v. Levy holds that a signed form is not conclusive proof of consent when any statutory element is missing, Bronneke v. Rutherford applies the professional disclosure standard, and Taylor v. Brill excludes informed-consent evidence when the plaintiff does not challenge consent.
This article covers the governing statutes, the foundational cases, claim elements, consent exceptions, filing deadlines, and developments through August 2026. Damages exposure is governed separately by the oneconomic damages cap.
Statutes Governing Consent Disclosure in Nevada
Two chapters govern consent disclosure. NRS 41A.110 applies in malpractice litigation and makes a signed statement satisfying every element conclusive proof of consent. NRS 449A.106(6), in the patient-rights chapter, creates a disclosure entitlement that operates independently of the litigation standard.
Under NRS 41A.110, a physician licensed under chapter 630 or 633, or a dentist under chapter 631, conclusively obtains consent after:
- Explaining the procedure in general terms, without specific details;
- Explaining alternative methods of treatment, if any, and their general nature;
- Explaining that there may be risks, together with their general nature and extent, without enumerating them; and
- Obtaining the patient's signature on a statement containing those explanations.
NRS 449A.106(6) entitles a patient to the information needed for informed consent. Except in an emergency, it must include significant medical risks, alternatives on request, the name of the person responsible, and likely costs of the treatment and any alternative. NRS 449A.106 replaced former NRS 449.710 in the 2017 recodification of Nevada's patient-rights provisions.
Foundational Nevada Informed Consent Court Cases
Two Nevada Supreme Court decisions define the rules for conclusive proof of consent and professional disclosure.
In Allan v. Levy, 109 Nev. 46, 846 P.2d 274 (1993), a form signed before a lumbar laminectomy omitted the procedure, alternatives, and risks. The court reversed the conclusive-proof-of-consent instruction built on it, holding that the NRS 41A.110 requirements "must be satisfied in their entirety for a physician to obtain conclusive consent to perform surgery upon a patient." Complete compliance makes the signed statement conclusive proof of consent, although consent may remain valid without compliance with NRS 41A.110.
Bronneke v. Rutherford, 120 Nev. 230, 89 P.3d 40 (2004), affirmed the district court judgment where a chiropractor's long-axis neck traction preceded a stroke. Declining a patient-oriented test, the court chose to "expressly adopt the professional standard for chiropractors." The court required expert testimony, at a minimum, on customary medical or chiropractic practice. Consent may be express or implied, and seeking treatment may imply consent to the particular technique.
Professional Standard Versus Patient-Centered Standard
Nevada measures disclosure by what a reasonable practitioner in the same field would disclose, a standard rooted in Beattie v. Thomas (1983). Brown v. Capanna, 105 Nev. 665, 782 P.2d 1299 (1989), reaffirmed that standard; Smith v. Cotter, 107 Nev. 267, 810 P.2d 1204 (1991), restated it. Neighboring jurisdictions measure disclosure differently, including Washington under its Revised Code of Washington (RCW), which affects both the proof required and who decides materiality.
Standards current as of August 2026.
Claim Elements, Causation, and the Expert Affidavit Requirement
A lack-of-informed-consent claim is pleaded as professional negligence under NRS 41A.015. Its elements and filing requirements include the covered defendant, breach, causation, and a supporting expert affidavit.
- Covered defendant: a "provider of health care" under NRS 41A.017, amended three times in 2025. The definition now reaches physicians, physician assistants, genetic counselors, anesthesiologist assistants, dentists, licensed nurses, licensed physical therapists, psychologists, behavioral health and wellness practitioners, chiropractic physicians, naprapaths, licensed dietitians, and licensed hospitals, clinics, and surgery centers.
- Breach: failure to make the disclosures a similarly trained practitioner would customarily make. Under NRS 41A.100, deviation from the accepted standard of care and causation must generally be shown by expert medical testimony, recognized medical texts or treatises, or the regulations of the licensed medical facility where the alleged negligence occurred, subject to statutory exceptions.
- Causation: under Smith v. Cotter, the undisclosed risk must have materialized, and the plaintiff must show the patient would have refused the procedure if informed, with that refusal reasonable under the circumstances.
- Affidavit: NRS 41A.071 requires an affidavit from an expert in a substantially similar practice area. The affidavit must identify each provider and the specific negligent acts alleged against each.
Limprasert v. PAM Specialty Hospital of Las Vegas, LLC, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 45, 550 P.3d 825 (June 27, 2024), overruled the common-knowledge exception created in Estate of Curtis v. South Las Vegas Medical Investors, LLC (2020). Only the res ipsa circumstances enumerated in NRS 41A.100 now excuse the pre-filing affidavit.
Battery Versus Professional Negligence
Humboldt General Hospital v. Sixth Judicial District Court, 132 Nev. 544, 376 P.3d 167 (2016), separates the two claims. Where a plaintiff claims not to have consented at all, "such an allegation constitutes a battery claim" and the justifications for an expert affidavit are diminished. Where general consent was given, and the dispute concerns whether its scope was exceeded, "an expert medical affidavit is necessary," even when the claim is pleaded as battery.
Taylor v. Brill and the Admissibility of Consent Evidence
Taylor v. Brill governs whether a signed consent form and the risk discussion behind it reach the jury when consent is not disputed. It leaves the NRS 41A.110 elements and the professional disclosure standard intact.
Taylor v. Brill, 139 Nev. 558, 539 P.3d 1188 (Dec. 21, 2023), held that "informed consent evidence is inadmissible, and an assumption-of-the-risk defense is improper, in professional negligence suits when the plaintiff does not challenge consent," and that "assent to treatment does not amount to consent to negligence, regardless of the enumerated risks and complications of which the patient was made aware."
- A limiting instruction did not cure the prejudice of admitting that evidence.
- Expert testimony on a procedure's known risks may still come in to assist the jury on standard of care, subject to qualification under NRS 41A.100(1) and case-by-case balancing under NRS 48.035(1).
Lathbury v. Jones, 544 P.3d 236 (Nev. 2024), applied that carve-out to defense expert testimony on femoral nerve injury during hip replacement. It is an unpublished disposition and is not precedent under Rule 36(c)(3) of the Nevada Rules of Appellate Procedure.
Consent Exceptions: Emergencies, Minors, and Incapacitated Patients
NRS 41A.120 sets the emergency rule, NRS Chapter 129 governs minors, and NRS Chapters 159 and 162A govern guardians and health care agents. Each authorizes another decision-maker to supply consent the patient cannot give personally.
Emergency Implied Consent Under NRS 41A.120
NRS 41A.120 implies consent when the procedure is, in competent medical judgment, reasonably necessary, delay could reasonably result in death, disfigurement, impairment of faculties, or serious bodily harm, and no person authorized to consent is readily available.
Nevada Administrative Code (NAC) 630.227(4) applies the same logic to physicians and physician assistants. It permits initiating care before consent, requires seeking consent at the earliest opportunity, and requires consent before ongoing treatment once the emergency ends.
Minors, Guardians, and Incapacitated Patients
Substitute authority varies by patient category, and each source of authority carries its own statutory limits.
Authorities current as of August 2026.
Evidentiary Strategy for Plaintiffs and Defendants
Whether consent is placed in issue controls what the jury hears. The consequences run in opposite directions depending on how the pleadings frame it.
- When consent is challenged, assumption-of-risk evidence may become relevant, but a signed consent form is not automatically admissible and remains subject to ordinary relevance limits and NRS 48.035(1) balancing.
- When consent is uncontested, Taylor supports excluding the consent form, risk discussions, lay testimony on the patient's risk knowledge, and hospital literature.
- Under Washoe Medical Center v. Lopardo (2006), a complaint filed without a compliant affidavit is void ab initio and cannot be amended.
- Staccato v. Valley Hospital, 123 Nev. 526, 170 P.3d 503 (2007), ties expert qualification to skill, knowledge, experience, and training in the procedure at issue. An expert need not hold the same credentials or license as the defendant provider.
- A signed statement establishes conclusive proof under NRS 41A.110 only if every statutory explanation was given, which Taylor makes relevant only once consent is actually disputed.
- NRS 41A.081 requires all parties, insurers, and counsel to attend and participate in a pre-trial settlement conference.
Filing Deadlines Under NRS 41A.097
NRS 41A.097 covers "professional services rendered without consent." The controlling tier depends on the injury or death date. The occurrence and discovery limits run in parallel within each tier, and the earlier expiration ends the claim.
The current tier reflects Assembly Bill 404, Chapter 493, Statutes of Nevada 2023, which extended the discovery window from one year to two for injuries on or after October 1, 2023.
- Concealment by the provider of an act, error, or omission on which the action is based, and which the provider knew or should have known, tolls the period.
- Minors alleging brain damage or birth defect have until age 10; sterility claims run two years after discovery.
Nevada Informed Consent Developments, 2024 to 2026
The core informed consent statutes held steady from 2024 through 2026. As of August 2026, regulation and appellate decisions filled in around them.
NAC 630.227, added by LCB File No. R068-23 and effective September 16, 2024, requires physicians and physician assistants to document informed consent before any procedure, injection, or other invasive treatment, except in emergencies. Disclosures must cover practitioner qualifications and the risks and benefits of each recommended treatment, including no treatment. Care may not be conditioned on waiving the right to file a Board complaint.
- In Dignity Health v. District Court (June 20, 2024), COVID-19 emergency directives tolled the limitations period for 122 days.
- De Becker v. UHS of Delaware, Inc., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 58 (Sept. 19, 2024), reaffirmed the battery versus professional negligence line, although the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act barred the consent claim.
- Nevins v. Martyn, 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 66 (Oct. 17, 2024), applied the NRS 41A.035 noneconomic-damages cap to vicariously liable professional entities.
The 2025 session left NRS 41A.071, 41A.097, 41A.100, 41A.110, and 41A.120 unchanged. The NRS 41A.035 noneconomic cap is $590,000 for causes accruing in 2026 and rises to $670,000 on January 1, 2027, under Assembly Bill 404.
Applying Nevada Informed Consent Law in Practice
Nevada informed-consent disputes turn on the NRS 41A.110 disclosure elements, the professional standard of care, subjective causation, the pre-filing affidavit, and the tiered deadlines under NRS 41A.097. Each of those questions is answered on the documentary record, not on recollection.
The underlying clinical records carry the proof on each of those questions. Consent-form contents, disclosure timing, the documented risk discussion, and any contemporaneous note of the patient's questions all sit inside the chart, and the affidavit deadline runs while those records are still outstanding. Retrieval and organized chronologies determine how early counsel can evaluate whether the NRS 41A.110 elements were met.
To learn more, request a demo.
