Published on:

Gilloon v. Hamana, Inc. (100 Nev. 518, 687 P.2d 80)

Nevada-elderly-man-abuse-nursing-home-300x200Articles: Nevada

Gilloon v. Hamana, Inc. (100 Nev. 518, 687 P.2d 80)

Gilloon v. Hamana, Inc. (100 Nev. 518, 687 P.2d 80)
Plaintiff (Appellee) – Richard Gilloon, Administrator of the estate of Winifred Gilloon (Deceased)
Defendant (Appellant) – Humana, Inc., dba Sunrise Hospital
Supreme Court of Nevada (1984)

On August 13, 1981, Plaintiff filed a wrongful death action against defendant stemming from the death of his mother, Winifred Gilloon. Defendant moved for a dismissal based on the statute of limitations. The district court granted the motion. Plaintiff appealed.


Winifred Gilloon underwent a total knee replacement surgery in January of 1976 at Sunrise Hospital. While at Sunrise, Winifred developed bedsores. The bedsores worsened, and for the next few years she was transferred to a series of hospitals and nursing homes. In September of 1979, Winifred’s son (Plaintiff) placed her in Moffitt Hospital in San Francisco, where, for the first time, she was properly diagnosed and treated. Winifred was still, however, experiencing complications that ultimately required surgery. Winifred died as a result of the surgery on October 8, 1979.


The district court granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the term “injury” in the statute of limitations referred to the injuries experienced by the decedent, and thus, Plaintiff was barred by a 2- year statute of limitations.


Did the court err in interpreting the term “injury” to refer to that sustained by the decedent, rather than the injury sustained by the Plaintiff as a result of the decedent’s death?


“The right of action is not concerned with the wrong done to the decedent but only with the wrong done to the heirs through the decedent’s death; consequently, it has no existence before the death of the decedent has occurred.

  • Perry v. Tonopah Mining Co., 13 F.2d 865 (D.Nev.1915)

Client Reviews

  • Having worked in the medical field, I appreciated the way that Mr. Rosenfeld and his staff approached my family’s situation. The combination of medical knowledge and legal expertise was indeed the winning combination for our case.
  • While nothing can change the way our mother was treated at a nursing facility, I do feel a sense of vindication that the facility was forced to pay for their treatment. I am certain that they would never have done had my attorneys not held their feet to the fire.
  • I was very nervous about initiating a claim against my mother’s nursing facility, but Rosenfeld Injury Lawyers took care of everything from getting the medical records to going to court. I felt like I had real advocates on my side. That meant a lot to me.
  • After a horrific episode at a nursing home, my sister and I spoke to a number of law firms. No one took the time to answer our questions and explain the legal process like Mr. Rosenfeld. He did a tremendous job on our case and I can see why he’s earned the praise he has from clients and peers.
  • I liked the fact that I could call the office and ask questions about the legal process at anytime. I could tell that my case was in good hands. I think that this was reflected in my father’s settlement was more than I anticipated the case ever being worth.