Katy Bourne, individually and as guardian of her minor child, filed a medical malpractice action against Dr. Zidrieck Valdes and his medical practice. The claim arose from the treatment of David Bourne, who was diagnosed with chronic anxiety, major depressive disorder, and chronic pain. In 2015, Dr. Valdes prescribed both Klonopin, a benzodiazepine, and an opioid. In May 2019, after new CDC guidelines advised against concurrent use of these drugs, Dr. Valdes discontinued Klonopin and prescribed Buspar. Bourne later reported withdrawal symptoms, and although Valdes referred him to inpatient treatment, Bourne refused to attend.
By August 2019, Bourne described unbearable work-related stress, and Dr. Valdes issued a half-dose emergency prescription of Klonopin. In follow-up visits, medical notes indicated that Bourne’s anxiety was improving with Buspar, that he denied suicidal ideation, and that he exhibited no signs of withdrawal. In November 2019, shortly after a medical visit, Bourne died by suicide. His note attributed his condition to medication changes. Toxicology results showed the presence of Xanax, which Dr. Valdes had not prescribed.
Following Bourne’s death, Katy Bourne and her son filed suit, alleging that Dr. Valdes failed to taper Klonopin appropriately and that this negligence led to David Bourne’s suicide. Their expert, Dr. Donald Misch, stated that prescribing an opioid and benzodiazepine together, and later discontinuing Klonopin without tapering, fell below the standard of care and contributed to the death. Dr. Valdes sought summary judgment, contending that suicide is a superseding intervening cause. The district court accepted this view, adopting what it termed the "suicide rule," which barred liability when the patient was not in the provider’s custody or control. Summary judgment was entered in favor of Dr. Valdes.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Nevada considered whether a patient’s suicide categorically prevented malpractice liability. The court reviewed Nevada’s statutes on professional negligence and found no language barring claims involving suicide. It determined that liability should be evaluated under traditional malpractice principles, including duty, breach, causation, and damages. The court emphasized that foreseeability remains the key factor in determining whether suicide can sever causation.
The court held that suicide does not automatically preclude liability. If expert evidence supports a prima facie malpractice case, as it did here, the matter must proceed to trial for fact-finding. The district court erred by dismissing the case without assessing whether the suicide was a foreseeable consequence of the alleged malpractice. The Supreme Court of Nevada reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded for further proceedings.
If you or a loved one experienced harm from negligent medical treatment, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles medical malpractice cases involving provider negligence, prescription errors, and patient injury or death. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your case.