Nevada’s Supreme Court has ruled that the tolling provisions created by COVID-19 emergency directives were broadly applicable to all potential claims, not just claims where the statute of limitations expired during the period the emergency directives were in effect.

Background
Dignity Health v. Dist. Ct., 140 Nev. Adv. Op. 40, concerned alleged professional negligence during childbirth that injured the child. Where an action was premised on brain damage or birth defect, the normal statute of limitations was extended until the child reached 10 years of age. Here, the complaint was filed 72 days after the child turned 10. The hospital moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely, but the trial court held that emergency directives issued as part of Nevada’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic tolled the statute of limitations. The directives in question, Declaration of Emergency Directive 009 (Revised) and 026, read that any time limit for the commencement of a legal action would be tolled until 30 days after the state of emergency was declared terminated. The trial court determined that the statute of limitations was tolled by 122 days, so the complaint was timely. The hospital appealed.

Affirmance
The Supreme Court of Nevada affirmed. The hospital argued that the relevant emergency directive only tolled those deadlines that expired during the tolling period, not those deadlines that expired after the tolling period ended. The Supreme Court disagreed, reasoning that the directives were not limited to those actions that would have expired. Instead, the directives added time to any pending statutes of limitations.

Attorneys, claims professionals and physicians should account for any additional tolling time when evaluating claims that overlap with the pandemic – especially those with long statutes of limitations, such as those involving a birth injury or birth defect. This also may be applicable to those cases where the statute of limitations is lengthened by other factors, such as delay in the transmission of records.