NEVADA AMICUS BRIEF UPDATE

 The Supreme Court of Nevada has issued its decision in the case of Feldman vs. Gullekson.  This case was worth noting as IARP retained counsel to file an Amicus Curiae (friend-of-the-court) brief. A committee of IARP Forensic Section members worked closely with our attorney to draft technical language regarding the role of vocational rehabilitation experts in cases involving claims for lost wages and diminished earning capacity.  Serving on that committee were: Steve Bast, Nancy Hughes, John Meltzer, Robert H. Taylor, and John M. Williams.

 The issue in Feldman was whether the defendants were entitled to order and have carried out an evaluation of the plaintiff by a vocational rehabilitation expert after the plaintiff made a significant claim for lost wages and diminished earning capacity.  The trial court had ordered this evaluation to proceed.  Plaintiff objected and sought relief through a "Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus" in The Supreme Court of Nevada.

 In their "Order Denying Petition for Writ of Prohibition or Mandamus," The Supreme Court of Nevada ruled that information sought (in the vocational rehabilitation evaluation) was relevant to the plaintiff's damages claim.  In addition, the Court noted plaintiff's failure to claim that the vocational rehabilitation examination would cause him "irreparable harm."  The Court also found that the information sought by the defendant through the vocational rehabilitation evaluation was neither privileged nor confidential.

 Of great significance was the Court's noting of the fact that "vocational rehabilitation experts evaluate the impact of a personal injury on an individual's employment options through personal interview and vocational tests."  It was clear, by their use of this language that the Court considered the language in the Amicus Brief drafted by the committee of IARP Forensic Section members.

 Some issues were not addressed by the Supreme Court of Nevada that IARP, through the Amicus Brief hoped would be. The specific issues related to the underlying litigation appeared to be the reason for this and could be clarified in the future should this case go to trial.

 Overall, however, the findings of the Supreme Court of Nevada were positive. The language in the Writ clearly recognized the role of vocational rehabilitation experts in the evaluation of cases where claims for lost wages and diminished earning capacity are being made.  This Writ gives further credibility to vocational rehabilitation experts and their role in civil cases where such claims are being made.  There is now a published order by a state supreme court related to the issue of examinations by vocational rehabilitation experts that could be applicable in other cases outside of Nevada.

 The case name is Jeffrey A. Feldman & Penny I. Feldman vs. The Second Judicial District of the State of Nevada, In and For The County of Washoe, and the Honorable Janet J. Berry, district Judge, Respondents and Demaris Jane-Kay Gullekson, Real Party in Interest, Supreme Court of Nevada Case Number 41560, Filed Feb. 11, 2004.