Nevada's Top Court Strikes Down Law Limiting Defense Medical Exams in Injury Cases

A new Nevada Supreme Court ruling voids a state law that restricted how insurers and defense attorneys could conduct independent medical exams in personal injury lawsuits, reshaping discovery in brain-injury claims statewide.

What the Court Decided

In a decision handed down in the spring of 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court threw out a state law that had governed physical and mental examinations in civil lawsuits, ruling that it improperly stepped on territory reserved for the courts. The justices found that the legislature had, in effect, rewritten the state's own rule of civil procedure by statute, and that only the judiciary has authority to set the terms of discovery inside a lawsuit it is overseeing.

This is not the first time Nevada's high court has invalidated similar legislation on the same separation-of-powers grounds, according to legal commentary tracking the case. The repeated pattern suggests the legislature will need a different approach if it wants to give injury plaintiffs added protection during defense medical exams going forward.

Why the Statute Existed in the First Place

The now-voided law was meant to give plaintiffs more say over how an independent medical exam was conducted, including who could be present and whether the session could be recorded. Supporters argued it protected people with serious injuries from feeling ambushed or misrepresented during an exam ordered by the opposing side.

Insurers and defense lawyers countered that the statute went too far, making it nearly impossible in practice to schedule a neuropsychological evaluation on reasonable terms. The Supreme Court's ruling sided with that view, at least on the question of which branch of government gets to write the rulebook.

What Changes for Injury Claimants

Under the restored framework, raw testing data from a neuropsychological exam can still be shared with a plaintiff's attorney, typically under a protective order limiting how it is used. That part of the old protections survives in practice, even without the statute behind it.

Audio or video recording an exam is a different story. The court held that recording requires a specific showing of good cause, and that a claimant's general worry about being misquoted or misrepresented is not enough on its own. Courts will decide recording requests case by case rather than under a statewide rule guaranteeing them.

What This Means If You Are Facing a Defense Medical Exam

If you have a pending injury claim in Nevada and the insurance company's attorney has requested an independent medical exam, the ground rules just shifted. You can no longer assume a recording or a support person will be automatically allowed; instead, your attorney needs to build a specific record of why any accommodation is necessary in your case.

Timothy R. O'Reilly and the team at Litigators for Justice track rulings like this one because they affect real people navigating exams while still recovering from a crash or a fall. If you are unsure how this decision applies to your case, a free, confidential consultation can walk through what to expect before you show up for an exam.

• Ask your attorney whether a protective order can still limit how raw testing data is used
• Do not assume you can bring a recording device without first getting court approval
• Document any specific reason you need an interpreter, support person, or accommodation well before the exam date
• Keep copies of every notice and scheduling letter related to the exam

What a Nevada Defense Medical Exam Can (and Cannot) Involve

Independent medical exams are now governed squarely by court rule rather than a standalone statute. Here is what that typically means in practice.

1. Physical or neuropsychological testing: A licensed examiner chosen by the defense can conduct standard testing relevant to your claimed injuries.
2. Disclosure of raw data: Underlying test data can generally still be shared with your own attorney, often under a protective order.
3. Audio or video recording: Recording is not automatic; you must show a specific, good-cause reason a judge will accept.
4. Presence of an interpreter: Courts will weigh whether an interpreter is truly necessary rather than granting one by default.
5. Choice and location of the exam: Scheduling and location are typically left to reasonable coordination between counsel, subject to judicial oversight.
6. Follow-up written reports: The examiner still must produce a report that can be reviewed and challenged by your side.
7. Scope of questioning: The exam should stay tied to the injuries actually at issue in your lawsuit, not an open-ended inquiry.

Frequently asked questions

What was the state law the Nevada Supreme Court struck down?

It was a statute that set specific rules for how independent medical exams had to be conducted in civil lawsuits, including conditions plaintiffs could demand. The court found it conflicted with the judiciary's own procedural rule and violated separation of powers.

Does this ruling mean I have to submit to any exam the insurance company wants?

No. You still have the right to object to unreasonable terms, but you now need to show specific good cause to a judge rather than relying on the old statute's automatic protections.

Can I still have an attorney or support person present during my exam?

That depends on the judge and the specific facts of your case. A blanket right is no longer guaranteed, so it is worth discussing your situation with your attorney beforehand.

How does this affect a brain injury claim I already filed?

If your case involves a scheduled or upcoming neuropsychological exam, this ruling could change what conditions apply. Talk to your attorney promptly so any request for accommodations is made the right way.