Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, an action for injury or death against a provider of health care may not be commenced more than 4 years after the date of injury or 2 years after the plaintiff discovers or through the use of reasonable diligence should have discovered the injury, whichever occurs first, for:
A. Injury to or the wrongful death of a person, based upon alleged professional negligence of the provider of health care;
B. Injury to or the wrongful death of a person from professional services rendered without consent; or
C. Injury to or the wrongful death of a person from error or omission in practice by the provider of health care.
A. For any period during which the provider of health care has concealed any act, error or omission upon which the action is based and which is known or through the use of reasonable diligence should have been known to him. (The following version of 41A.097(2)B. is in effect until July 1, 1999)
B. In any action governed by the provisions of NRS 41A.003 to 41A.069, inclusive, from the date a claimant files a complaint for review by a screening panel until 30 days after the date the panel notifies the claimant, in writing, of its findings. The provisions of this paragraph apply to an action against the provider of health care and to an action against any person, government or political subdivision of a government who is alleged by the claimant to be liable vicariously for the medical or dental malpractice of the provider of health care, if the provider, person, government or political subdivision has received notice of the filing of a complaint for review by a screening panel within the limitation of time provided in subsection 1. (The following version of 41A.097(2)B. becomes effective July 1, 1999)
4. As used in this section, "provider of health care" means a physician licensed under chapter 630 or 633 of NRS, dentist, registered nurse, dispensing optician, optometrist, registered physical therapist, podiatric physician, licensed psychologist, chiropractor, doctor of Oriental medicine, doctor of acupuncture, medical laboratory director or technician, or a licensed hospital as the employer of any such person.
Massey v. Litton, 669 P.2d 248 (Nev. 1983). (Summary judgment for the defendant on the basis of the statute of limitations was improper where the evidence raised a question whether the patient was, or should have been, aware of her cause of action. "Discovery" involves the realization of injury and that the cause was the negligence of the health care provider. The test is whether the patient knows, or should know of facts that would put a reasonable person on notice. The case involved a hip replacement followed by paralysis and "foot drop.")