The Nevada Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of mandamus filed by Renown Regional Medical Center and nurse Emilie C. Hyland, reversing a district court's refusal to dismiss claims in a professional negligence lawsuit filed by the estate of Scott Freeman.
The high court's decision, filed Dec. 11, 2025, in case No. 89838, represents an extraordinary intervention in ongoing litigation before the Second Judicial District Court in Washoe County. The petition challenged orders by District Judge Lynne K. Jones denying motions to dismiss and reconsideration in the underlying malpractice case.
Renown Regional Medical Center and Hyland sought the writ after the trial court refused to dismiss professional negligence claims against them. The lawsuit was brought by Melissa Freeman, both individually and as administrator and personal representative of the estate of Scott Freeman. The case involves multiple healthcare defendants, including Brown Calvanese Cameron Ltd., doing business as Northern Nevada Emergency Physicians, Dr. David Benaron, and nurse Tyler Cline.
A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that compels a lower court to perform a specific act or correct an error when the court has exceeded its jurisdiction or failed to follow the law. The Nevada Supreme Court's willingness to grant the petition suggests the justices found the district court's refusal to dismiss the claims legally improper.
The underlying professional negligence action appears to center on medical care provided to Scott Freeman, though the court documents do not detail the specific allegations or circumstances surrounding his treatment. Professional negligence cases in the medical context typically involve claims that healthcare providers failed to meet the standard of care, resulting in injury or death.
The case involves a complex web of defendants representing different aspects of emergency medical care. Brown Calvanese Cameron Ltd., operating as Northern Nevada Emergency Physicians, suggests the case may involve emergency department treatment. The inclusion of both physicians and nurses as defendants indicates the lawsuit likely challenges multiple levels of care provided to Freeman.
Legal representation in the case reflects the high stakes involved. Renown Regional Medical Center and Hyland are represented by Hall Prangle & Schoonveld, LLC, with attorneys Casey W. Tyler and Richard D. DeJong handling the petition. The Freeman estate is represented by Claggett & Sykes Law Firm, led by Sean K. Claggett and including attorneys Jennifer Morales, Shannon L. Wise, Amelia M. Mallette, Micah S. Echols, David P. Snyder, and Charles L. Finlayson.
The emergency physicians group and Dr. Benaron are represented by Lemons, Grundy & Eisenberg, with Edward J. Lemons and Alice Campos Mercado serving as counsel. Nurse Tyler Cline is represented separately by Olson, Cannon, Gormley & Stoberski, with James R. Olson and Stephanie M. Zinna as attorneys.
The Nevada Supreme Court's intervention through mandamus relief is relatively uncommon and typically reserved for situations where lower courts have clearly exceeded their authority or made fundamental legal errors. The fact that the high court granted the petition suggests significant legal issues were at stake in the district court's handling of the motions to dismiss.
Professional negligence cases against healthcare providers often involve complex medical evidence and expert testimony to establish whether care met accepted standards. The dismissal motions likely challenged fundamental aspects of the claims, such as whether the plaintiffs could establish the required elements of professional negligence or whether the case was filed within applicable statute of limitations periods.
For Renown Regional Medical Center, one of northern Nevada's largest healthcare systems, the Supreme Court's intervention provides relief from what the hospital system apparently viewed as improper denial of its dismissal motion. The case highlights the ongoing challenges healthcare providers face in defending against malpractice claims and the importance of procedural protections in the legal system.
The decision also underscores the Nevada Supreme Court's willingness to exercise its supervisory authority over lower courts when fundamental legal principles are at stake. Mandamus relief serves as a check on trial court decisions that exceed proper judicial authority or fail to follow established law.
The case will now return to the district court for proceedings consistent with the Supreme Court's mandamus order. The specific terms of the writ will determine how the lower court must proceed, potentially requiring dismissal of some or all claims against the petitioners.
This intervention in ongoing medical malpractice litigation demonstrates the Nevada Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring proper application of legal standards in professional negligence cases involving healthcare providers.