Nevada Supreme NEVADA SUPREME COURT

Transcription

1 Winter 2010 Highlights Expert Affidavits Required for Almost All Claims for Healthcare Provider Negligence Husband and wife plaintiffs filed suit against a doctor, his staff, and his professional corporation without including the required expert affidavit in support of their allegations. The Nevada Supreme Court held that expert affidavits are required in support of claims for professional negligence of non-doctors and professional corporations. There is, however, an exception to the affidavit requirement where the harm suffered would not normally occur without negligence on the part of the defendant. Plaintiffs Can Recover Under the Liability and Underinsured Motorist Provisions of a Single Insurance Policy A plaintiff successfully persuaded the Nevada Supreme Court to allow recovery under both the liability and underinsured motorist provisions of an insurance policy issued to the driver of the vehicle in which plaintiff was a passenger. The Nevada Supreme Court found that such stacking is permissible when the liability claim is asserted against the permissive driver, and the underinsured motorist claim is asserted against a second negligent party. Comment President Barrack Obama nominates Clark County Chief Deputy District Attorney Gloria Navarro to serve as U.S. District Court Judge for the State of Nevada. Nevada Supreme Court Decisions Medical Malpractice and Civil Prodecure The Nevada Supreme Court Clarifies Scope of Expert Affidavit Requirement in Professional Negligence Cases Patricia Fierle underwent a mastectomy in 2005 as a result of breast cancer. To assist in planned chemotherapy, a catheter was surgically placed in Ms. Fierle s chest wall. Dr. Perez and his employees, registered nurse Melissa Mitchell, and nurse practitioners Charmaine Cruet and Linda Lesperance, administered the chemotherapy. On Ms. Fierle s third visit to Dr. Perez, Mitchell administered chemotherapy medication which did not infuse into the catheter but allegedly infused into the tissue, causing a subcutaneous burn called an extravasation. A subsequent ultrasound revealed that the catheter tip was not in the subclavian vein, as it should have been, but had coiled in the tissue. Ms. Fierle sought treatment for her burn from Dr. Miercort, who referred her to U.C. Davis Medical Center, where Ms. Fierle was diagnosed with a severe extravasation of chemotherapy over the right shoulder and subclavian region. Ms. Fierle and her husband filed a medical malpractice and professional negligence complaint against Dr. Perez, his professional medical corporation, and his staff. The Fierles alleged that Mitchell failed to use due care in the administration of the chemotherapy, and that Dr. Perez and the nurse practitioners were negligent in the training and supervision of Mitchell. NRS 41A.071 requires medical malpractice complaints to be accompanied by an expert affidavit in support of the complaint s allegations, but the Fierles initial complaint did not include an expert affidavit. Once they realized their error, the Fierles filed an amended complaint which included the expert affidavit of Dr. Miercort. The defendants moved to dismiss the original complaint for failure to include an expert affidavit and also moved to strike the amended complaint because the original complaint was allegedly void ab initio. A complaint that is void ab initio cannot be amended or cured. The district court granted both the motion to dismiss the complaint and the motion to strike the amended complaint. The Fierles appealed to the Supreme Court of Nevada. On appeal, the Fierles argued that NRS 41A.071 did not apply to professional medical corporations. The Fierles based their argument on the statutory definitions of medical malpractice, which referred to In This Issue NEVADA SUPREME COURT Medical Malpractice Page 1 Insurance Coverage Page 2 NEVADA JURY VERDICTS Personal Injury Page 3 Medical Malpractice Page 4 Construction Defects Page 5 Premises Liability Page 5 COMMENTS Nomination of New U.S. District Court Judge Page 6

2 Page 2 Nevada Legal Update physicians, hospitals, and employees of hospitals, but not to professional medical corporations or associations. The Supreme Court recognized that the definition did not include Dr. Perez s professional corporation on its face, but also examined other statutes related to professional entities and the personal liability of doctors. NRS (1) and (1) both address the personal liability of a doctor who worked for a professional association, and both clearly state that no statute alters the personal liability of a doctor for any tort in which he personally participated. The Court reasoned that because the formation of a professional medical corporation did not alter the liability of a doctor, the most appropriate reading of NRS 41A.071 required that complaints against professional medical corporations include expert affidavits. The Supreme Court concluded that the district court was correct in dismissing the Fierles claims related to the professional medical corporation. The Fierles further claimed that the statute referred only to medical malpractice, and not other forms of professional negligence. Specifically, the Fierles contended that only the claims made against Dr. Perez fell under the definition of medical malpractice and that the remaining claims against the nurse and nurse practitioners were exempt from the expert affidavit requirements. The Supreme Court concluded that it was not clear whether the term medical malpractice encompassed professional negligence of nurses. Faced with this ambiguity, the Court turned to the legislative history of the statute to determine the purpose and intent behind the statutory requirements. The legislature intended to shield doctors from frivolous lawsuits and encourage them to continue practicing medicine in Nevada. The original enactment of the statute referred only to medical malpractice and doctors. In 2004, the legislature added a definition for professional negligence, which encompassed nurses and nonhospital employees. In light of the purpose of the legislation, the Court concluded that the requirements for filing a medical malpractice claim and a professional negligence claim should be the same. The Court also noted that exempting nurses from the affidavit requirement would essentially exempt doctors from the requirement, as claims for professional negligence are identical to claims for medical malpractice. A plaintiff could simply file claims for professional negligence against doctors to circumvent the affidavit requirement. The Court therefore concluded that claims for professional negligence against providers of health care, including nurses and nurse practitioners, required expert affidavits. The district court did not err in dismissing the Fierles claims against Dr. Perez s staff. The Supreme Court has previously determined that no expert affidavit is required in support of claims based on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. This doctrine can be invoked when the subject injury would not ordinarily occur without negligence. By statute, the exception applies to a provider of medical care when an unintended burn caused by heat, radiation or chemicals was suffered in the course of medical care. Here, Ms. Fierle was allegedly injured as a result of Mitchell s negligent administration of chemotherapy drugs. The Court concluded that the res ipsa loquitur exception applied to the claims of professional negligence against Mitchell. The claims against the other parties who were not directly involved with the administration of the chemotherapy, did not qualify under the exception. Accordingly, the district court erred in dismissing the claims against Mitchell. Fierle v. Jorge Perez M.D., LTD, decided November 19, Insurance Coverage The Nevada Supreme Court Allows Passenger to Stack Liability and Underinsured Motorist Coverage in Case Involving Two Negligent Drivers In December 2004, Dionicia Delgado was a passenger in a vehicle operated by Eunice Marcelino. Marcelino attempted to turn left across northbound traffic on Nellis Boulevard in Las Vegas, and was struck by a car driven by Toquando Dean. Delgado was severely injured. Marcelino was insured by American Family Insurance Group up to $50,000 per person. Dean carried an insurance policy with a $15,000 liability limit. Marcelino s policy also included coverage for an underinsured motorist and stated that American Family would pay compensatory damages for bodily injury which an insured person is legally entitled to recover from the owner or operator of an underinsured motor vehicle. Marcelino s policy defined an insured person as the contracting party, relatives, anyone else occupying the insured car, and anyone claiming damages due to bodily injury caused by a person in the vehicle. The parties agreed that Delgado was an insured person under Marcelino s underinsured motorist provision. American Family s policy further defined an underinsured motor vehicle as a motor vehicle insured by a policy which is less than the limit of underinsured motorist coverage under the subject policy. The policy allowed another driver s vehicle to qualify as underinsured if the other driver had less liability coverage than the limit of Marcelino s underinsured motorist coverage. Delgado offered to settle her claims with American Family for a total of $75,000, including $50,000 for the liability coverage limit, plus $25,000 for the underinsured motorist coverage limit. American Family denied the offer, reasoning that Marcelino s vehicle did not qualify as an underinsured vehicle according to the policy terms. Delgado and her husband filed suit, alleging that American Family breached its contract by failing to accept the demand for payment of Marcelino s policy limits. The Delgados alleged that the underinsured motorist at issue was Marcelino. Because the policy clearly excluded Marcelino as a possible underinsured motorist, and because previous Nevada Supreme Court cases barred recovery under both liability and underinsured motorist provisions of a single insurance policy, American Family moved for summary judgment. The Delgados opposed the motion and argued

3 Nevada Legal Update Page 3 that their claim was actually based on the Dean vehicle being underinsured and that previous Nevada cases baring recovery from both liability and underinsured motorist coverage did not apply to their case. The district court concluded that Marcelino s vehicle was not underinsured and that precedent barred recovery from both the liability and the underinsured motorist provisions. Accordingly, the district court granted American Family s motion for summary judgement, and the Delgados appealed. The Delgados asserted that their case was factually distinguishable from previous cases that barred recovery under both the liability and the underinsured motorist provisions of a single insurance policy. In Peterson v. Colonial Life, the plaintiff, a motorcycle passenger, was injured after a collision with a vehicle. The passenger claimed the motorcycle operator was negligent, and recovered under the operator s liability policy. Once the plaintiff exhausted the limits of the owner s policy, she made an uninsured/underinsured motorist claim under the same policy of insurance, again based on the operator s negligence. The court concluded that the passenger was essentially attempting to increase the liability coverage under the owner s policy and held that stacking of a liability policy on top of an uninsured/underinsured motorist policy was impermissible. The Supreme Court considered a similar issue in the case of Baker v. Criterion Insurance. In Baker, a passenger sought to recover liability and uninsured/ underinsured motorist benefits under her own policy, instead of the policy of the driver. The court in Baker determined that the differences between Paterson and Baker were inconsequential and reaffirmed that once a passenger has recovered under the owner s liability policy the passenger may not also recover under the owner s uninsured/underinsured coverage. The court in Baker clarified that a passenger may, however, recover from her own uninsured/ underinsured coverage after recovering from the owner s policy. The Delgados argued that Baker and Peterson did not apply because each involved a single automobile and the vehicles respective insurance policies, while the Delgados case involved the concurrent negligence of two drivers, with separate insurance policies, both of which were insufficient. American Family countered that while the configuration of parties varied, the Delgados sought to do exactly what the court forbade in Baker and Paterson: the stacking of underinsured motorist benefits on top of liability benefits to increase the total value of available coverage. The Court disagreed with American Family. The Court explained that both Baker and Peterson reasoned that allowing a passenger to recover under the driver s liability and uninsured/underinsured motorist policy based only on the driver s negligence would impermissibly increase the liability limit for the owner/insured. Neither Baker or Peterson, however, considered whether a guest passenger whose injuries were caused by jointly negligent parties may recover liability benefits under the policy based on the driver s negligence, in addition to recovering underinsured motorist benefits under the same policy for damages caused by another, underinsured driver. The plaintiffs in Baker and Peterson alleged that the vehicles in which they were passengers were underinsured, while the Delgados claimed that another negligent vehicle was underinsured. Accordingly, the Court held that neither Peterson nor Baker barred recovery of underinsured benefits under the facts of this case. The Court explained that allowing the Delgados to recover underinsured benefits promoted the purposes of uninsured/ underinsured motorist coverage. The purpose of uninsured/underinsured coverage was to compensate the insured for damages based upon the tort liability of the uninsured, underinsured, or hit-and-run driver. In this case, allowing recovery of both liability and underinsured coverage from a single policy allowed the passenger to be compensated for damages caused by the joint negligence of an uninsured/underinsured driver. Delgado v. American Family Insurance, decided October 1, Nevada Jury Verdicts Personal Injury Jury Finds for Defendant in Motorcycle Accident Trial Plaintiff, a 49 year-old female and Nevada visitor, crashed her motorcycle in an inactive construction zone and sustained a closed head injury with moderate to severe traumatic brain injury. Plaintiff alleged that Defendant failed to implement a proper traffic control plan, and failed to provide proper signs and warnings, which caused Plaintiff to become confused by the roadway and lose control of her motorcycle. Plaintiff called a traffic reconstruction expert who testified regarding the speeds and distances involved, as well as a traffic engineer who opined that the lack of traffic control could have contributed to the accident. Defendant denied liability and asserted that its traffic control plan was proper and had been approved by the general contractor as well as the State of Nevada. Defendant alleged that Plaintiff was an inexperienced motorcycle rider who lost control as a result of a bump in the road. To support her claimed damages, Plaintiff called a neurologist who testified that Plaintiff sustained severe brain injury and experienced problems with memory, speech, taste, smell, and vision. Plaintiff also called a neuro-psychologist who testified that Plaintiff would require ongoing supervised care and would suffer rapid decline in her function and ability. Plaintiff also relied on the testimony of a life care planner and economist regarding her past and future lost income and the present-day value of her future medical care. Plaintiff sought past medical expenses of $600,000; future medical expenses of $2,025,000; past lost wages of $480,000; and $665,000 for future lost wages. Plaintiff made a $2,000,000 pretrial settlement demand and Defendant offered $1,000,000. Following a nine day trial and seven hours

4 Page 4 Nevada Legal Update of deliberation spanning two days, the jury found for the Defendant. Kodera v. United Rentals Highway Technologies, Inc., decided May 1, Jury Awards $6.5 Million in Trucking Rear-End Accident Case Plaintiff, a 46 year-old female cocktail waitress and realtor, was stopped on the freeway for an emergency vehicle when she was rear-ended by a semi-truck driven by Defendant Martin. Defendant Martin was within the course and scope of his employment with Defendant Wilson Logistics. Plaintiff alleged permanent lumbar injuries to her L-4 and L-5 disks, which required surgical intervention and implantation of internal fixation devices. Plaintiff also alleged that her injuries prevented her from performing her occupational duties. Plaintiff called a non-treating physician, her treating physician, an orthopedic physician, a pain management specialist, and a psychologist to testify regarding the cause and scope of her alleged injuries. Defendants relied on the testimony of an orthopedic specialist, a vocational rehabilitation specialist, and an economist to rebut the Plaintiff s witnesses. Plaintiff sought $129,000 in past medical expenses; $550,000 in future medical expenses; $80,000 in past lost wages; and $552,000 future lost wages. Defendants offered $600,000 in the middle of trial and $750,000 on the last day of trial. Following the five day trial, the jury deliberated for three hours before awarding Plaintiff $6,500,300. Penix v. Wilson Logistics Nevada, Inc, decided May 8, Medical Malpractice Jury Finds for Defendant in Medical Malpractice, Wrongful Death Trial Following an above-knee amputation of the right leg on August 26, 2003, Decedent was transferred to a rehabilitation hospital. Decedent s health declined until signs of septic shock, low blood pressure, high fever, altered mental state and slurred speech manifested on September 10, At that point Defendant, the treating physician, transferred Decedent to the special care wing of the hospital. Two days later, Decedent s blood pressure dropped to critically low levels and upper gastrointestinal bleeding began. In response, plans were made to transfer Decedent to a hospital in Henderson, Nevada. When the ambulance crew arrived to transfer the Decedent, they were told to wait while the Decedent was cleaned. Once the ambulance crew was able to see Decedent, they overrode the Defendant s orders to transport to the Henderson hospital and, instead, transported Decedent to a different hospital in Las Vegas. Decedent died at the hospital on Sept 12, An autopsy revealed the cause of death to be gastrointestinal hemorrhage, due to gastric ulcer. Decedent s surviving husband, two daughters, and son brought a suit for wrongful death. Plaintiffs alleged that Defendant doctor fell below the standard of care when she failed to transfer Decedent to an acute care hospital. Defendant denied falling below the standard of care and alleged Decedent s death was caused by non-parties to the litigation. Defendant further argued that the Decedent presented with multiple pre-existing complaints, including the right above-knee amputation, secondary to gangrene; congestive heart failure; sacral decubitus ulcer; a left foot wound; coronary artery disease; and type two diabetes. Defendant also claimed that she recommended placement of a feeding tube because Decedent was mal-nourished, but Decedent s daughter refused to consent to the procedure. In addition, Defendant asserted that during Decedent s treatment she consulted with an infectious disease specialist who attributed Decedent s spiked fever to a central catheter line infection. Plaintiffs requested compensatory damages in excess of $10,000. The trial lasted eight days and the jury deliberated three hours before finding for the Defendant. Howren v. Anjum, M.D., decided July 22, Jury Awards Mother and Father for Negligence of Hospital During Labor and Delivery Plaintiff Mother presented to Defendant University Medical Center s labor and delivery department at 10:00 a.m. experiencing contractions which began seven hours earlier at 3:00 a.m. The fetal heart rate was noted to be non-reactive to scalp stimulation, and prolonged fetal heart rate deceleration was noted at 10:42 a.m., lasting three to four minutes. Defendant Doctor was notified of the fetal condition and ordered admission for induction of labor. Subsequently, the hospital staff initiated Pitocin to promote labor. By 4:00 p.m., terminal bradycardia was noted, with loss of fetal heart tones. Once the fetal heart rate was documented at 40 beats per minute, an emergency caesarian was performed, resulting in delivery of a severely depressed infant boy in cardiac arrest. Plaintiff Son died two years later from causes unrelated to the birth injuries. Plaintiff Mother and Father alleged Defendants fell below the standard of care during the mother s labor and delivery. Specifically, Plaintiffs alleged that the mother should have been taken to surgery much earlier. Plaintiffs argued that their son sustained severe perinatal asphyxia with subsequent seizure disorder and cerebral palsy; severe hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy from decreased blood flow to the brain; and was permanently mentally and physically impaired. Plaintiffs further alleged that their son suffered cortical blindness, and required a tracheotomy for breathing and a gastrointestinal tube for feeding. Defendants denied falling below the standard of care. The son s Estate requested compensatory damages in excess of $10,000, while his Nevada Legal Update is published quarterly by Alverson, Taylor, Mortensen & Sanders 7401 W. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada (702) Fax (702)

5 Nevada Legal Update Page 5 parents made a claim for loss of consortium. Plaintiffs made a pretrial demand of $99,999, and the Defendants refused to make an offer. Following a ten day trial, the jury deliberated for four hours finding for the doctor and his medical practice; however, it awarded the Estate $387,920.29, and awarded each of the parents $75,000 against Defendant University Medical Center. Benitez-Cordova v. University Medical Center, decided June 1, Construction Defects Forty Home-Owner Plaintiffs Prevail In Defective Plumbing Case Plaintiffs, 40 homeowners in a residential development known as Dove Canyon, alleged Defendant negligently installed defective plumbing systems in Plaintiffs homes. Plaintiffs called a mechanical engineer and a metallurgical engineer to offer expert opinion testimony regarding the negligently installed plumbing systems. Plaintiffs also called a construction expert and cost estimator to establish the cost of repair. Defendant denied liability and asserted that the builder selected the plumbing products installed in the Plaintiffs houses, not the Defendant. Defendant also argued that the cost of repair was lower than the Plaintiffs witness testified. Plaintiffs made a pretrial demand of $40,000, and Defendant offered $20,000. During trial Plaintiffs sought $425,000 for property damage. Following the eleven day trial, the jury awarded Plaintiffs $475,000. Kitec Plaintiffs Litigation v. Majestic Plumbing, Inc., decided June 12, Premises Liability Jury Finds for Defendant in Escalator Mishap Case Plaintiff, a 50 year-old woman and Nevada resident, attended a Tim Conway show on the second floor of Defendant hotel. After the show, 500 people exited by way of a narrow hallway. To assist patrons in their exit, Defendant reversed an up escalator to run as a down escalator. An elderly patron, who was not a party to the litigation, entered the crowded escalator and fell near the bottom. Plaintiff descended the escalator immediately behind the elderly patron and was pushed down in a domino effect when the elderly patron fell. Plaintiff allegedly sustained cervical and shoulder strains and sprains with residual pain. Plaintiff alleged Defendant failed to provide crowd control and failed to provide security personnel around the escalator. Plaintiff also alleged that Defendant failed to provide proper signs and warnings to prevent overcrowding and the use of walkers on the escalators. Plaintiff used the videotaped deposition of an orthopedic specialist to support her claims for injury. D u r i n g t r i a l, P l a i n t i f f s o u g h t compensatory damages in excess of $10,000, an unspecified amount for medical expenses, and an unspecified amount for lost wages. Following the three day trial and two hours of deliberation, the jury found for the Defendant. Sipla v. Flamingo Laughlin, Inc., decided February 25, Plaintiff Found Ninety Percent at Fault in Treadmill Injury Case and Recovers $368 A 57 year-old unemployed Nevada resident was using a treadmill in the fitness room of Defendant apartment complex, when she fell and was allegedly thrown to the wall. Plaintiff claimed that she sustained cervical, thoracic, and lumbar soft tissue injures requiring ongoing medical care. Plaintiff claimed that the treadmill had been negligently programmed to speed up unexpectedly. Additionally, Plaintiff claimed that no instructions were available for the treadmill, and that the treadmill was intended for home use, not for use in a fitness center. She further argued that Defendant placed the treadmill dangerously close to the wall. In support of her claim, Plaintiff called a biomechanical engineer, an orthopedic physician, and a psychologist to testify at trial. Defendant denied liability and called a psychologist to rebut the testimony of Plaintiff s witnesses. Plaintiff requested compensatory damages in excess of $10,000, medical expenses of $84,316, and future medical expenses of $188,500. After a five day trial, the jury awarded Plaintiff $3,634.59; however, the jury found Plaintiff to be ninety percent at fault, and accordingly reduced Plaintiff s award to $ Covosie v. Boulder Palm, L.L.C., decided July 17, Restaurant Slip and Fall Case Ends With $5.5 Million Award Plaintiff, a 49 year old female Nevada resident, was walking to the restroom in Defendant s restaurant when she allegedly slipped and fell on olive oil in front of the kitchen entry. Plaintiff s fall resulted in a three-level internal lumbar disk disruption and a cervical disk herniation, both of which required surgical fusion. Plaintiff claimed that Defendant s restaurant was poorly designed and encouraged patrons to walk through the area directly in front of the kitchen entry. The area was congested with food-runners, waiters, and other staff crossing paths with patrons headed to the restroom. Additionally, Plaintiff argued that the olive oil was spilled by one of Defendant s employees, and that such a food spill was foreseeable. Plaintiff called a human factors expert who opined that the Defendant could have done many things to improve safety in the area, such as providing slip mats or warning signs. Defendant denied liability and argued there was no olive oil or other food substance on the floor, but that Plaintiff tripped over her own feet. Defendant called a biomechanical expert and a safety expert, who both opined that the area was safe and that Plaintiff s fall was most likely caused by her own tripping. To support her claim for damages, Plaintiff called a physiatrist, a pain management specialist, a vascular surgeon, and an orthopedic specialist to testify regarding the causes and extent of her injuries. Plaintiff also called a vocational rehabilitation specialist and an economist to testify regarding her economic losses. Defendant countered with an orthopedic

6 Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders 7401 W. Charleston Blvd. Las Vegas, Nevada PRST STD U.S. POSTAGE PAID LAS VEGAS, NV PERMIT NO. 447 The information included in this newsletter is not a substitute for consultation with an attorney. Specific circumstances require consultation with appropriate legal professionals. physician and a physiatrist who testified that the Plaintiff had a pre-existing degenerative disk disease, and that the injuries caused by her fall were limited to strains and sprains. Defendant also called an economist to testify regarding the Plaintiff s economic losses. Plaintiff sought $402,751 in past medical expenses; $2,932,105 in future medical expenses; $186,498 in past lost wages; $533,571 for future lost wages; and $172,542 lost household services. Plaintiff made a pretrial demand of $1,000,000, and Defendant declined to make an offer. During closing arguments, Plaintiff s counsel requested the jury award $8,054,925. After the twelve day trial, the jury deliberated for four hours and awarded Plaintiff $5, The jury found Plaintiff to be 49 percent at fault and the Defendant 51 percent at fault, thereby reducing the Plaintiff s award to $2,831,231. Giglio v. FGA, Inc., decided May 12, Comments President Barrack Obama recently nominated Clark County Chief Deputy District Attorney Gloria Navarro to serve as U.S. District Court Judge for the State of Nevada. Pending confirmation by the U.S. Senate, Navarro will fill a vacancy created by the retirement of Judge Brian Sandoval. Judge Sandoval served as U.S. District Court Judge from October 24, 2005, until his resignation on August 15, President Obama issued a statement praising Navarro for her evenhandedness, intellect, and spirit of service that Americans expect and deserve from their federal judges. President Obama thanked Navarro for her continued willingness to serve and expressed his confidence that she will dispense justice with unwavering integrity and impartiality. Navarro earned a bachelor s degree from the University of Nevada Las Vegas in 1989, and her law degree from Arizona State University in Since 2005, she has worked in the District Attorney s office, representing Clark County in civil litigation. Before joining the District Attorney, Navarro served in the Federal Public Defender s office. She also had her own practice and was awarded the Louis Wiener Pro Bono Service Award. The Nevada State Bar Association named her Public Lawyer of the Year in Navarro was born in Las Vegas and is married to Brian Rutledge, who prosecutes criminal cases in the District Attorney s office. The couple has three sons, ages 11, 9, and 6.