Justia Health Law Opinion Summaries

Nevada’s medical marijuana registry does not violate the Due Process, Equal Protection, or Self-Incrimination Clauses of the United States or Nevada Constitutions.Appellant in this case applied for and received a registry identification card. Thereafter, Appellant filed suit against the Nevada Legislature, the Governor, and the Department of Health and Human Services (collectively, Respondents) arguing that the medical marijuana registry and its associated fees violated his due process and equal protection rights and his right against self-incrimination. The district court granted summary judgment for Respondents. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Nevada’s medical marijuana registry does not impinge upon a fundamental right; (2) the registry is rationally related to the legitimate state interest of protecting the health, safety, and welfare of the public; and (3) the registry does not violate a registrant’s right against self-incrimination. View "Doe v. State ex rel. Legislature of 77th Session" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order granting a writ mandating disclosure of public records. The public records sought were copies of the business licenses of persons operating medical marijuana establishments (MME) in the City of Sparks. The City produced the business licenses but redacted the licensees’ identifies from the documents. Respondent filed a petition for a writ of mandamus to compel the City to disclose the redacted information. The district court granted the petition, concluding that the City’s duty under the Nevada Public Records Act to disclose the identities of the business was not exempted by Nev. Admin. Code 453A.714’s confidentiality provision. The City appealed, arguing that a petition for a writ of mandamus was not the appropriate means of seeking judicial relief when challenging an administrative code and that section 453A.714 rendered confidential the identifying information of MME business license holders. The Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part, holding (1) Respondent’s petition for a writ of mandamus was a procedurally proper means for seeking the disclosure of public records; but (2) the identifying information of MME business license holders was confidential under section 453A.714 and thus was exempt from disclosure. View "City of Sparks v. Reno Newspapers, Inc." on Justia Law

Ayden A., a sixteen-year-old minor, was admitted to West Hills Hospital because he was deemed to be emotional disturbed and a danger to himself. One week later, the State filed a petition for involuntary placement in a locked facility after emergency admission, arguing that its petition was timely because five days as prescribed in Nev. Rev. Stat. 432B.6075(2) means judicial days. The district court ruled in favor of Ayden, concluding that “five days” in the statute means calendar days. The State subsequently filed this original petition for a writ of mandamus. The Supreme Court granted the State’s petition and directed the district court to vacate its order denying the State’s petition to extend the placement, holding (1) although Ayden was released from involuntary placement and this matter is moot, this particular issue is presents an issue that is capable of repetition yet evading review and thus fits within an exception to the mootness doctrine; and (2) the five days in section 432B.6075 must be judicial days based on Nev. R. Civ. P. 6(a)’s instructions on computing time. View "State v. Second Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

A psychiatrist filed a petition for court-ordered continued involuntary admission of Petitioner to a mental health facility on the grounds that there was an imminent risk that Petitioner would harm himself or others if he were not involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility. The district court granted the petition. Twelve days after the district court’s involuntary admission order was entered, Petitioner was unconditionally released from the mental health facility. Petitioner then filed this petition for a writ of mandamus asking that the Supreme Court direct the district court to recall from the Central Repository for inclusion in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System the previously transmitted record of Petitioner’s involuntary admission. In support of his petition, Petitioner argued, inter alia, that Nev. Rev. Stat. 433A.310(5) did not authorize transmission of the involuntary admission order until that order became final under Nev. Rev. Stat. 433A.310(1). The Supreme Court denied Petitioner’s request for extraordinary writ relief, holding (1) section 433A.310(5)’s plain language requires a district court to transmit an admission order to the Central Repository at the time it is entered; and (2) clear and convincing evidence justified Petitioner’s involuntary admission. View "Vu v. Second Judicial Dist. Court" on Justia Law

Aden Hailu suffered severe lack of brain oxygen damage while she was admitted to St. Mary’s Regional Medical Center. Hailu was placed on ventilation support. After Hailu failed an apnea test, St. Mary’s concluded that Hailu was brain dead and notified Hailu’s father and guardian, Fanuel Gebreyes, that it intended to discontinue Hailu’s ventilator and other life support. Gebreyes filed an emergency petition for temporary restraining order seeking to prevent St. Mary’s from removing Hailu from life-sustaining services. The district court ruled in favor of St. Mary’s. At issue on appeal was whether the American Association of Neurology guidelines (AAN Guidelines) are considered “accepted medical standards” that satisfy the definition of brain death in Nev. Rev. Stat. 451.007. The Supreme Court reversed the district court’s order denying a petition or temporary restraining order, holding that the district court failed properly to consider whether the AAN Guidelines adequately measure all functions of the entire brain, including the brain stem, under Nev. Rev. Stat. 451.007 and whether the AAN Guidelines are considered accepted medical standards by the medical community. Remanded. View "In re Guardianship of Hailu" on Justia Law