$4.3 Million Verdict Secured in Federal Medical Neglect Case

On June 20, 2025, Adam J. Breeden played a key role on a legal team that secured a $4.3 million verdict in a federal civil rights case involving deliberate indifference to serious medical needs—a violation of the Eighth Amendment. The case was brought against two former Nevada Department of Corrections medical employees: a nurse and a physician formerly assigned to Northern Nevada Medical Center / Stewart Conservation Camp. While the individuals were named in the case, the State of Nevada is responsible for paying the judgment.

Tried before Judge Miranda Du in the U.S. District Court in Reno, the case lasted just three days, demonstrating that well-founded claims can be efficiently presented to a jury.

The Case: Inmate Suffered Painful, Ignored Medical Conditions

The plaintiff, Nick Mork, alleged that while incarcerated, he experienced two serious medical problems that were largely disregarded by prison medical staff, despite repeatedly requesting treatment for over a year.

• One issue involved a severe, full-body rash
• The other, an abscessed tooth infection that was left untreated and eventually led to the loss of several teeth

Both conditions were extremely painful, yet medical responses were either delayed, absent, or grossly inadequate.

Evidence of Misconduct Strengthened the Claim

Several facts in the case worked strongly in favor of the plaintiff:

1. One of the defendants submitted false interrogatory responses, which were uncovered after legal counsel was retained
2. Deliberate deletion of photographic evidence, including images of the rash taken by the physician
3. Accusations that the physician threatened to transfer the plaintiff to a high-security facility in retaliation for seeking medical care
4. A disturbing comment attributed to the nurse—endorsed by the physician—that they should try “amputation at the neck” to treat the plaintiff. This was disputed by the Defense but was documented by the plaintiff.

At trial, the plaintiff presented as a well-spoken and educated individual, and he had already been released from prison by the time of testimony.

Jury Delivers a Strong Message

Before trial, the highest settlement offer made was $98,000. The jury, clearly disturbed by the defendants’ conduct, returned a $4.3 million award, signaling the seriousness of the constitutional violations.

Although punitive damages were not requested, Defense counsel implied during closing arguments that the defendants might be personally responsible for paying a judgment. As a result, the Court issued a corrective instruction, reminding jurors not to consider who would ultimately pay any damages awarded.

By the time of the trial, both defendants were no longer employed by NDOC.