Nevada Court Reversed Dismissal of Malpractice Claim After Suicide

Katy Bourne, individually and on behalf of her minor son, filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Zidrieck Valdes and his practice following the suicide of her husband, David Bourne. The lawsuit alleged that Dr. Valdes breached the standard of care by failing to properly taper David off Klonopin, a benzodiazepine, which contributed to his suicide.

David Bourne had a medical history of anxiety, depression, and chronic back pain. Dr. Valdes began treating him in 2015 and prescribed both Klonopin and an opioid. In 2019, citing updated CDC guidelines, Dr. Valdes stopped prescribing Klonopin and replaced it with Buspar. Although Bourne later reported severe work-related stress, he also reported that Buspar was helping and denied suicidal ideation during subsequent visits. In November 2019, shortly after a medical visit, David died by suicide. His note referenced being harmed by medications and stated he had not been properly tapered off Klonopin.

Dr. Valdes moved for summary judgment, arguing that Nevada should adopt the "suicide rule," a legal doctrine applied in some jurisdictions holding that suicide is a superseding cause that relieves a defendant of liability. The district court agreed and ruled that Valdes could not be held liable because David was not in his custody or control and suicide was not foreseeable.

Nevada Supreme Court declined to adopt categorical bar

On appeal, the Nevada Supreme Court considered whether to adopt the suicide rule as a complete defense in medical malpractice cases. The court reviewed precedent from other states and Nevada’s own medical malpractice framework under NRS Chapter 41A. It found no statutory or precedential support for an automatic bar on liability where a patient dies by suicide.

The court held that whether a medical provider can be liable for a patient’s suicide must be determined by ordinary medical malpractice standards. These include a breach of the standard of care, proximate cause, and damages. If a plaintiff presents evidence that a provider’s negligence foreseeably led to suicide, then liability may be appropriate.

The court emphasized that foreseeability is a question of fact and that summary judgment is inappropriate where reasonable minds could differ. The court cited expert testimony that Dr. Valdes deviated from the standard of care and contributed to David’s psychological distress. It found that the district court failed to analyze these issues and instead improperly relied on a blanket rule.

Final outcome

The Nevada Supreme Court reversed the grant of summary judgment and remanded the case. It held that suicide does not bar medical malpractice claims as a matter of law and that factual issues surrounding foreseeability and standard of care must be resolved by a jury.

Help with medical malpractice and wrongful death claims

If you lost a loved one due to a provider’s alleged failure to manage medication or mental health care, Whitcomb, Selinsky PC handles medical malpractice and wrongful death cases involving prescription management, psychiatric care, and provider negligence. Reach out to schedule a consultation and learn how our team can assist with your case.