LAS VEGAS (Legal Newsline) - There is no “suicide rule” in Nevada protecting doctors against malpractice suits by survivors of patients who killed themselves, the state’s highest court ruled.
While the defendant’s lawyers claimed the rule barring cases based on suicide is “nearly universal” in other states, the Nevada Supreme Court said even in those states suicide can be actionable if it was foreseeable.
Dr. Zidrieck Valdes diagnosed David Bourne with chronic anxiety, depression and back pain in 2015 and prescribed Klonopin, a benzodiazepine, and an opioid. He withdrew the Klonopin in 2019 after the Centers for Disease Control issued new guidelines discouraging doctors from prescribing both drugs simultaneously, replacing the Klonopin with a different anti-anxiety medicine.
After the change, Bourne’s wife Katy said she overheard Bourne telling his doctor he was having withdrawal symptoms from the Klonopin. Dr. Valdez referred Bourne to drug treatment but he refused to go.
Medical notes from the time say Bourne “displayed no physical or mental symptoms of withdrawal.” But in November 2019 Bourne killed himself, leaving behind a note blaming Dr. Valdes for cutting off the Klonopin, “a drug I didn’t even need,” without tapering. An autopsy showed Bourne had Xanax, an anxiety medicine Dr. Valdes hadn’t prescribed, in his system.
Katy Bourne sued Dr. Valdes for malpractice. Her expert witness, Dr. Donald A. Misch, said Dr. Valdes deviated from the standard of care buy prescribing an benzodiazepine and an opioid at the same time and then removing the Klonopin without tapering the dose.
The trial court dismissed the case, citing the “suicide rule” adopted by other states barring liability for a patient’s suicide if the victim isn’t in the custody or control of the doctor.
The Nevada Supreme Court reversed in a Nov. 27 opinion by Justice Patricia Lee. Nevada’s malpractice statute permits claims based on any failure to follow the standard of care and doesn’t contain an exception for suicide, the court ruled. While the defense argued the suicide rule is “nearly universal,” only three of the cases cited involved medical malpractice and all of those stated it might be possible to win a suit if the suicide were foreseeable, the court said.
“Whether Valdes' conduct breached the standard of care, and whether Bourne's suicide was unforeseeable and thereby a superseding intervening cause alleviating Valdes of any liability for his alleged negligence, are questions of fact that rest with the factfinder,” the court concluded.