Yes. Nevada personal injury law allows compensation for permanent injuries and disability, and those facts often increase both economic damages (future care, reduced earning capacity, household services) and noneconomic damages (pain and suffering, disability, loss of enjoyment of life), as supported by the evidence. Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004); Canterino v. The Mirage Casino-Hotel, 117 Nev. 19, 16 P.3d 415 (2001); Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984).
This post is educational information about Nevada law, not legal advice.
What “Permanent Injury” and “Disability” Mean in a Nevada Injury Case
- Permanent injury generally means the condition is expected to last indefinitely or for a long duration, even with treatment.
- Disability typically focuses on what you can and cannot do, including limitations at work and in daily life.
Even if you improve, you can still have a permanent limitation that drives future medical care, work restrictions, and quality-of-life impacts.
Categories of Damages That Commonly Apply to Permanent Injury or Disability
1) Future medical expenses and long-term rehabilitation
If the permanent injury requires ongoing care, you can seek future medical and rehab costs when they are a natural and probable consequence of the tort and are reasonably necessary. Hall, 112 Nev. 1384, 930 P.2d 94; Lerner Shops, 83 Nev. 75, 423 P.2d 398.
2) Loss of earnings and loss of earning capacity
Permanent impairment often reduces what a person can earn over time. Nevada recognizes that damages can include future losses even though they inherently involve projection and proof, not certainty in the everyday sense. Freeman v. Davidson, 105 Nev. 13, 768 P.2d 885 (1989).
In significant disability cases, lawyers often use vocational and economic testimony to connect medical limitations to work limitations and then to lifetime financial loss.
3) Household services as a separate economic loss
When injury prevents a person from doing household work they previously performed, Nevada recognizes household services as a compensable economic loss, not merely part of pain and suffering. Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 955 P.2d 661 (1998).
4) Pain and suffering, disability, and loss of enjoyment of life
Nevada recognizes noneconomic damages for pain and suffering, and the amount is generally for the jury (or factfinder) to decide based on the evidence and common sense. Canterino, 117 Nev. 19, 16 P.3d 415; Stackiewicz, 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925.
Nevada also recognizes loss of enjoyment of life as part of general damages for pain and suffering. Banks, 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52.
5) Future pain, suffering, and disability must be supported, not speculative
When you are claiming future pain and disability from subjective injuries, Nevada authority emphasizes the need for competent medical evidence rather than speculation. Sutton, 120 Nev. 972, 103 P.3d 8; Krause, 117 Nev. 929, 34 P.3d 566; Gutierrez, 80 Nev. 562, 397 P.2d 3; Paul, 111 Nev. 1544, 908 P.2d 226.
This is especially important in permanent injury cases where the major dispute is the future, not the past.
How Do You Prove Permanent Injury or Disability?
Strong Nevada permanent injury cases are built around:
Medical proof
- Objective findings when available (imaging, EMG results, surgical findings)
- Treating physician opinions on prognosis and permanency
- Permanent restrictions (lifting limits, standing/walking limits, driving limits)
- Necessity of future care (injections, therapy, surgeries, medication management)
Functional proof
- Testimony about day-to-day impact: sleep, chores, parenting, hobbies, mobility
- Work impact: ability to perform essential job functions, missed work, demotion, job change
- Consistency between medical records and claimed limitations
Expert proof when appropriate
- Treating physicians and specialists
- Vocational rehabilitation experts
- Economists for earning capacity and future losses
- Life care planners for future medical and rehab costs
Comparative Negligence
If the defense proves the injured person was partly at fault, Nevada reduces damages proportionally, and recovery can be barred if the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the defendant’s negligence. NRS 41.141.
This is often relevant because disability cases usually involve higher numbers, and the defense tends to focus heavily on fault allocation.
Nevada Legal Authorities Cited
Nevada statutes and rules
- NRS 41.141
Nevada case law
- Hall v. SSF, Inc., 112 Nev. 1384, 930 P.2d 94 (1996)
- Lerner Shops of Nev., Inc. v. Marin, 83 Nev. 75, 423 P.2d 398 (1967)
- Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004)
- Canterino v. The Mirage Casino-Hotel, 117 Nev. 19, 16 P.3d 415 (2001)
- Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984)
- Yamaha Motor Co., U.S.A. v. Arnoult, 114 Nev. 233, 955 P.2d 661 (1998)
- Freeman v. Davidson, 105 Nev. 13, 768 P.2d 885 (1989)
- State, Univ. & Cmty. Coll. Sys. v. Sutton, 120 Nev. 972, 103 P.3d 8 (2004)
- Krause Inc. v. Little, 117 Nev. 929, 34 P.3d 566 (2001)
- Gutierrez v. Sutton Vending Serv., Inc., 80 Nev. 562, 397 P.2d 3 (1964)
- Paul v. Imperial Palace, Inc., 111 Nev. 1544, 908 P.2d 226 (1995)
If you need assistance with your personal injury case, don’t hesitate to contact Friedman Injury Law.
Friedman Injury Law
375 N. Stephanie St., Ste. 1411
Henderson, NV 89014
P: (702) 970-4222
W: blakefriedmanlaw.com