Supreme Court of Nevada Rejects “Suicide Rule” as a Complete Defense to Medical Malpractice Claims

The Supreme Court of Nevada issued an opinion yesterday in a case it framed as follows:

This matter is one of first impression in Nevada and asks whether we should adopt the “suicide rule” as a complete defense to claims of medical malpractice. The instant medical malpractice action alleged that a medical provider’s negligence in treating his patient caused the patient to die by suicide. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the medical provider, finding that the patient’s suicide precluded liability as a matter of law. However, Nevada’s professional negligence statutes…do not preclude a medical provider from being held liable for a patient’s suicide, and we have never held that such a preclusion exists. We decline to adopt a rule that a patient’s suicide relieves a medical provider of liability for the patient’s death. We instead hold that the determination as to whether a medical provider is liable for a patient’s injuries must be resolved under established medical malpractice law. Bourne v. Valdes MD, 2025 WL 1667394 (Nev. 2025). 

Specifically, the court concluded 

that a patient’s suicide does not preclude liability for medical malpractice as a matter of law. Rather, like any other action alleging that a medical provider’s negligence caused injury or death to a patient, the ordinary principles of medical malpractice apply. Consistent with existing Nevada medical malpractice law, a medical provider who is alleged to have provided negligent care to a patient owes a duty of care to that patient, regardless of whether the medical provider has control over, or custody of, the patient. If the medical provider’s conduct is proven to fall below the standard of care, then “the crucial inquiry is whether the defendant’s negligent conduct led to or made it reasonably foreseeable that the deceased would commit suicide.”…If the patient’s suicide is a foreseeable consequence of the medical provider’s negligence, then the medical provider may be held liable….However, where the patient’s suicide is not foreseeable, then the suicide is a superseding intervening cause, severing the causal chain and relieving the medical provider of liability for their negligence….

Here, through expert testimony, appellants demonstrated a prima facie case for medical malpractice. Dr. Misch opined that Dr. Valdes departed from the standard of care when he simultaneously prescribed an opioid and a benzodiazepine, and when he failed to taper Bourne off Klonopin. He therefore concluded that Valdes’ departure from the standard of care caused Bourne to suffer withdrawals, which led to Bourne’s suicide. The district court did not analyze whether Valdes’ conduct breached the standard of care or whether Bourne’s suicide was unforeseeable and thereby a superseding intervening cause alleviating Valdes of any liability for his alleged negligence. Thus, the district court erred when it granted Valdes’ motion for summary judgment….

-CM