Las Vegas Hepatitis Update

The four clinics involved with Dr. Desai and his group have been closed by the Southern Nevada Health District and the City of Las Vegas. Several doctors and CRNA’s have had their licenses to practice medicine suspended by the Nevada Board of Medical Examiners and other state agencies. On May 6th, Judge Allan R. Earl signed an injunction ordering that Dr. Desai and Dr. Carrera be enjoined from transferring any assets from their personal estates, the estates of their wives, from any entities they own or from any of their medical practices which exceed $50,000.00 without Court approval. These actions have been taken by the State and by the Courts to stop any potential exposure to additional diseases, insure the records of the clinics and the doctors are maintained and to attempt to keep any assets of the doctors or the clinics from being dissipated.

Judge Earl has also appointed a Special Master to preside over the procedural aspects of the lawsuits against the clinics. A local lawyer, Floyd Hale, has been appointed as the Master and since early April has been holding weekly hearings to work out the procedures for claims for the uninfected patients of the clinics, for the infected patients of the clinics and an orderly way to proceed with the lawsuits against the doctors and clinics.

There is a class action lawsuit that may go forward for patients of the clinics who are not infected with Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C or any other infectious disease that might be attributable to the actions of the clinics or their staffs. Some limited discovery is beginning in that class action and by mid-October, 2008 there should be a final hearing to determine whether or not a class can be certified for the uninfected patients of the clinic.

As to the infected patients of the clinic, the Court has determined that the eight (8) patients identified by the Center for Disease Control and the Southern Nevada Health District should be the first eight (8) cases on which discovery begins and thereafter the remainder of the infected patients’ claims should proceed. That does not mean nothing will be done until those eight (8) claims are concluded. Instead, it strictly means that the priority trial settings will be given to those eight (8) patients first unless for either health reasons or age another patient’s claim also needs to be given priority.

One of the difficulties in proceeding with these cases has been the collection of records from the clinics and from treating physicians. Many of the primary care physicians in Las Vegas are understandably concerned about issues of whether or not they may be named in lawsuits or they may be asked by the state or local governmental entities to provide records.

The Metropolitan Police Department of Las Vegas has taken possession of all of the records of the clinics, including the individual patient charts. Therefore, all of the billing and medical records for each patient of any of the effected clinics is in the possession of the Metro PD. To date, the Metro Police Department has not turned over any individual patient charts or any of the personnel, training, procedures or other records of any of the clinics.

Many patients who have tested positive for an infection have asked whether or not their spouses should be also tested. At this time, we are suggesting that any spouse of an infected client also be tested just to make sure no disease has been transmitted. Some of patients may just be getting your results back from the initial test. If that test is positive, then your spouse certainly should be tested.

Another reason it is so important to get copies of all records is that any medical negligence claim filed in Nevada must have an accompanying affidavit prepared by a medical expert confirming negligence of the defendant and that the negligence caused injury. Under the 2003 Medical Malpractice Reforms enacted by the legislature, any case without the proper affidavits will automatically be dismissed. Many of the cases that have been filed to date have been filed without affidavits. We feel that this is not a reasonable way to proceed given the statute and the legislative reforms.