Quick Answer
Yes. In Nevada, “pain and suffering” is a form of noneconomic damages available in most personal injury cases when someone else’s negligence causes injury. Nevada recognizes that the amount of pain and suffering is generally a fact question for the jury (or the factfinder) based on the evidence, and appellate courts typically review noneconomic awards under standards that focus on whether the verdict was influenced by passion or prejudice or is otherwise excessive under Nevada law. Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984). Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952).
This is educational information about Nevada law, not legal advice.
1) What “pain and suffering” includes in Nevada
Pain and suffering usually includes the human impacts of injury, such as:
- physical pain and discomfort,
- loss of mobility and physical limitations,
- sleep disruption and fatigue,
- emotional distress tied to the injury experience,
- anxiety about recovery, reinjury, or surgery,
- inconvenience, humiliation, and loss of independence,
- disability-related impacts on daily living.
Nevada also recognizes that “loss of enjoyment of life” is a component of general damages, discussed more specifically in Blog Post #91. Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004).
2) Pain and suffering is not based on a fixed multiplier in Nevada
Insurance companies often talk in “multipliers.” Nevada law does not impose a mandatory multiplier formula for pain and suffering.
Instead, the valuation is evidence-driven and fact-specific. Nevada decisions reflect that general damages are largely for the factfinder, subject to judicial review when an award is excessive under Nevada standards. Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984). Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952).
3) What evidence proves pain and suffering most effectively
A) Medical records that consistently document symptoms and functional limits
Your medical record is often the backbone of pain and suffering proof, including:
- consistent reporting of pain and functional limitations,
- objective findings when available,
- treatment progression, and
- documented response to treatment.
Statements made for purposes of medical diagnosis or treatment have special evidentiary treatment in Nevada. NRS 51.115.
B) Treating provider testimony when needed
In many cases, you can describe your pain yourself. In contested or higher-value cases, provider testimony can explain:
- why pain is expected given the injury,
- whether symptoms are likely to persist,
- whether permanent restrictions are medically necessary.
If medical causation is disputed and is beyond common knowledge, Nevada generally requires competent medical testimony stated to a reasonable degree of medical probability. Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005). Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
C) “Day in the life” facts and credible personal testimony
The best pain and suffering testimony usually focuses on specifics:
- what you can no longer do,
- what tasks take longer or require help,
- how the injury impacts work, parenting, hobbies, and daily routines,
- what a typical day looks like now compared to before.
D) Corroborating witnesses
Spouses, family, friends, and coworkers can testify about changes they have observed.
4) Pain and suffering can be reduced by Nevada comparative negligence
Nevada’s modified comparative negligence statute reduces damages by the plaintiff’s percentage of fault and bars recovery if the plaintiff’s negligence is greater than the defendants’ combined negligence. NRS 41.141. Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984).
This matters because comparative negligence reduces both economic and noneconomic damages.
5) Caps and special limits that may apply in certain Nevada cases
A) Professional negligence against health care providers
Nevada law imposes a statutory cap on noneconomic damages in professional negligence actions against providers of health care. NRS 41A.035.
B) Claims against the State and political subdivisions
Nevada law provides statutory limits for certain claims against the State and political subdivisions. NRS 41.035.
Whether a cap applies depends on who is being sued and what claim is being asserted.
6) The collateral source rule, defendants generally cannot reduce pain and suffering because insurance paid bills
Nevada generally applies a strict collateral source rule in tort cases, limiting the defendant’s ability to benefit from collateral payments. Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996). Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006).
Pain and suffering is not “paid by insurance” in the first place, but collateral source issues still matter because defendants sometimes try to use collateral benefits to downplay overall harm.
7) Deadline reminder
Most Nevada personal injury actions must be filed within two years. NRS 11.190(4)(e).
Nevada legal authorities cited
- NRS 11.190(4)(e).
- NRS 41.035.
- NRS 41.141.
- NRS 41A.035.
- NRS 51.115.
- Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006).
- Banks ex rel. Banks v. Sunrise Hosp., 120 Nev. 822, 102 P.3d 52 (2004).
- Brownfield v. Woolworth Co., 69 Nev. 294, 248 P.2d 1078 (1952).
- Morsicato v. Sav-On Drug Stores, Inc., 121 Nev. 153, 111 P.3d 1112 (2005).
- Proctor v. Castelletti, 112 Nev. 88, 911 P.2d 853 (1996).
- Stackiewicz v. Nissan Motor Corp. in U.S.A., 100 Nev. 443, 686 P.2d 925 (1984).
- Warmbrodt v. Blanchard, 100 Nev. 703, 692 P.2d 1282 (1984).
- Williams v. Eighth Judicial Dist. Court, 127 Nev. 518, 262 P.3d 360 (2011).
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