CHOI v. LLC LLC (2022)

ORDER DENYING PETITION

Petitioner Dr. Clark Choi seeks a writ of mandamus requiring the district court to vacate the portion of its order denying his motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with NRS 41A.071. The decision to entertain a petition for a writ of mandamus is within our sole discretion. Smith v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 107 Nev. 674, 677, 818 P.2d 849, 851 (1991). “A writ of mandamus is available to compel the performance of an act that the law requires ․ or to control an arbitrary or capricious exercise of discretion.” Int'l Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008); see also NRS 34.160.

Having carefully reviewed the record, we conclude our intervention is not warranted here. See Borger v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Ct., 120 Nev. 1021, 1028, 102 P.3d 600, 605 (2004) (explaining that under NRS 41A.071 a medical expert may opine so long as “their present or former practice reasonably relates to that engaged in by the defendant at the time of the alleged professional negligence.”); see also Staccato u. Valley Hosp., 123 Nev. 526, 531-32, 170 P.3d 503, 506-07 (2007) (explaining, in the context of expert witnesses, that the expert's ability to opine to the standard of care depends upon the procedure or treatment at issue rather than the defendant's area of practice or specific license). Accordingly, we

ORDER the petition DENIED.