Is Physical Injury a Requirement to Assert a Negligence Claim in Nevada?

Today’s blog is very exciting as we will be discussing a hot off the presses case from the Nevada Supreme Court. This case was handed down just days ago on December 31, 2014. The case is Sadler v. Pacificare of Nevada. See 130 Nev. Advance Opinion 98. In Sadler, the Nevada Supreme Court held that physical injury is NOT required to assert a negligence personal injury claim in Nevada.


The case revolved around the highly publicized case of a healthcare facility, reusing needles, resulting in an outbreak of hepatitis C. Each person who was exposed to the dirty needles was advised to undergo testing for hepatitis and HIV. The question before the court, was whether the need for medical testing/monitoring, was enough to assert a personal injury (negligence) claim in Nevada. So, what was the outcome: a physical injury is NOT required.

The court looked at Nevada’s general negligence law, which has four elements: (1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; (2) the defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the legal cause of the plaintiff’s injuries; and (4) the plaintiff suffered damages. See DeBoer v. Senior Bridges of Sparks Family Hosp., Inc., 282 P.3d 727, 732 (2012).  The court noted that the third element contemplates that the plaintiff/injury party suffered an injury.

The question in front of the court, was whether a physical injury was required to make a claim, or if a legal injury was sufficient. The court found legal injury was enough. The court noted that in cases of negligent infliction of emotional distress, a physical injury is similarly not required.

The court also gave the example of Jones being knocked down by the negligence of Smith. If Jones goes to the doctor to have tests run to see if he suffered injuries, Smith would be responsible for Jones’ medical bills, even if the testing comes back that Jones is not physically injured.

Next time, we will discuss removal of personal injury cases to Federal Court.