Nevada Supreme Court Strikes Down IME Statute in Personal Injury Cases
Nevada Supreme Court invalidates key IME statute regulating personal injury medical exams.
Why it matters: This ruling disrupts established procedures for medical evidence in Nevada personal injury cases, requiring lawyers and in-house counsel to adjust litigation strategies. It also signals possible future legislative reforms on medical examinations.
- On May 26, 2026, Nevada Supreme Court ruled NRS 629.620 unconstitutional for violating separation of powers.
- NRS 629.620 aimed to replace Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 35 for IMEs but was struck down, following earlier invalidation of NRS 52.380.
- The court allowed raw neuropsychological test data to be disclosed to plaintiff’s counsel under protective order.
- Audio recording of neuropsychological exams permitted only in rare cases with good cause, per court guidance.
On May 26, 2026, the Nevada Supreme Court ruled in Powers v. Dist. Ct. that NRS 629.620, the state's statute governing Independent Medical Examinations (IMEs) in personal injury cases, was unconstitutional for violating the separation of powers doctrine. This statute has sought to replace the established Nevada Rule of Civil Procedure 35 (NRCP 35) as the procedural framework for IMEs.
This decision follows a prior ruling that struck down NRS 52.380 on similar constitutional grounds. The court's stance emphasizes that procedural rules like those governing IMEs fall under judicial authority and cannot be legislated away.
Crucially, the court also addressed the handling of raw data from neuropsychological examinations, holding that such data can be disclosed to plaintiff’s counsel, provided there is a protective order. The court reasoned that concerns about misuse by nonpsychologists were unfounded. As stated, "The district court did not abuse its discretion by permitting disclosure of the raw data to Bueno’s counsel, subject to a protective order."
Regarding audio recordings of neuropsychological exams, the court ruled these are generally permissible only under "special circumstances amounting to good cause," which are typically rare and involve extreme situations.
This ruling significantly impacts attorneys and in-house counsel involved in Nevada personal injury litigation by altering how medical examinations are regulated and how sensitive medical data is shared. The invalidation of NRS 629.620 may prompt legislative efforts to craft new, constitutionally compliant statutes governing IMEs.
By the numbers:
- May 26, 2026 — date of Nevada Supreme Court ruling
- NRS 629.620 and NRS 52.380 — statutes declared unconstitutional
- 1 — number of Nevada Supreme Court cases ruling on IME statutes in recent years
What's next: Lawmakers may consider revising the IME statute to align with constitutional requirements after this ruling.