$200 Million Award for Matt Sharp Client

1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ACOM
MATTHEW L. SHARP, ESQ.
Nevada State Bar #4746
Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.
432 Ridge St.
Reno, NV 89501
(775)324-1500
matt@mattsharplaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs
IN THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK
SANDRA L. ESKEW, individually and Case No. A19-788630-C
as Special Administrator of the Estate
of William George Eskew; TYLER Dept. No. 1
ESKEW; and WILLIAM G. ESKEW, JR.;
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SIERRA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
COMPANY, INC.; UNITED HEALTHCARE, and JURY DEMAND
INC.; and DOES I through XXX, Exemption Requested:
inclusive, Damages Exceed $50,000.00
Defendants.
_______________________________________/
Plaintiffs, by and through their attorney, Matthew L. Sharp, hereby allege and complain
as follows:
I. JURISDICTION
1. Plaintiff Sandra L. Eskew (“Sandy”) is the Special Administrator of the Estate of
William George Eskew (“Bill”). She is the surviving spouse of Bill. As his surviving spouse,
Sandy has standing under NRS 41.085 and NRS 41.100.
2. Plaintiffs Tyler Eskew (“Tyler”) and William George Eskew, Jr. (“BJ”) are the
surviving children of Bill. Tyler and BJ have standing under NRS 41.085.
3. Plaintiffs are residents of Clark County, Nevada.
4. At all relevant times, the injuries to Bill, and his death, occurred while Bill was a
resident of Clark County, Nevada.
Case Number: A-19-788630-C
Electronically Filed
7/15/2019 11:53 AM
Steven D. Grierson
CLERK OF THE COURT

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5. Defendant Sierra Health and Life Ins. Co., Inc. (“SHL”) is an insurance company
residing in Nevada with its principal place of business in Clark County, Nevada.
6. At all relevant times, SHL, in communications with its insured and the public,
holds itself out as a UnitedHealthcare Company.
7. Defendant UnitedHealthcare, Inc. (“UHC”) is an insurance company with its
principal place of business in St. Paul, Minnesota.
8. At all relevant times, UHC owns, controls and manages SHL.
9. At all relevant time, UHC is responsible for the management for all insurance
subsidiaries of UnitedHealth Group, Inc. including SHL.
10. At all relevant times, UHC has adopted and implemented all commercial medical
policies used by all insurance subsidiaries of United Health Group including SHL.
11. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL were engaged in the joint venture of
providing health insurance and handling claims including preauthorization requests for citizens
of the State of Nevada.
12. Defendants DOES I through XXX are persons, firms, corporations, and/or
business organizations whose true identities are presently unknown. Plaintiffs allege Defendants
DOES I through XXX engaged in wrongful and tortuous conduct. When the true names of
DOES I through XXX are discovered, Plaintiffs will request leave to amend the complaint.
Plaintiffs allege that Defendants DOES I through XXX engaged in conduct that caused injury to
and/or the death of Bill. Defendants DOES I through XXX are responsible for the acts of SHL.
They engaged in conduct to assist, authorize, or direct SHL to engage in the tortious conduct as
alleged in this complaint, including the refusal to authorize and pay policy benefits for proton
beam therapy. Defendants DOES I through XXX were responsible for establishing policies and
procedures that lead to the denial of or refusal to authorize proton beam therapy.
II. FACTS
13. Bill and Sandy Eskew purchased an individual health insurance policy from UHC
and SHL with an effective date of January 1, 2016.

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
14. At the time UHC and SHL issued the policy, they knew Bill had had been
diagnosed with lung cancer and was receiving treatment for lung cancer.
15. When it issued the policy, UHC and SHL entered into a special relationship with
Bill that was akin to that of a fiduciary duty.
16. UHC and SHL had adopted a Managed Care Program to control the medical care
its insureds receive.
17. UHC and SHL required that the insured participate in the Managed Care Program.
18. UHC and SHL knew that if services for cancer are not pre-authorized it is unlikely
the insured will go forward with the treatment recommended by the treating physician.
19. UHC and SHL represented that a service was medically necessary if it was needed
to improve a specific health condition or to preserve the insured’s health and was consistent with:
(1) the diagnosis or treatment of the insured; (2) the most appropriate level of service that can be
safely provided to the insured; and (3) not solely for convenience of the insured, the provider or
the hospital.
20. UHC and SHL represented that its Managed Care Program consisted of medical
peer review committees, Utilization Review Committees and Medical Directors.
21. UHC and SHL represented that the Managed Care Program was intended to direct
care to the most appropriate settings to provide healthcare in a cost-effective manner.
22. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew that it owed a duty of good faith and
fair dealing to its insured and the implementation of the Managed Care Program had to be
consistent with its duty of good faith and fair dealing including:
• UHC and SHL had a duty to promptly approve pre-authorization when the request for
services was medically necessary.
• UHC and SHL had a duty to conduct prompt, thorough and objective investigation and
evaluation of a request for pre-authorization of service.
• UHC and SHL had a duty to consider it insured’s interest at least equal to its own interest.
• UHC and SHL had a duty to assist its insured in obtaining the benefits of the policy.

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
• UHC and SHL had a duty to deal fairly honestly with its insured including disclosing the
policy benefits and conditions relevant to the pre-authorization request.
• UHC and SHL had a duty to interpret its insurance policy in a reasonable manner and
consistent with Nevada law including to interpret a coverage provision to provide the
greatest possible coverage to its insureds.
• UHC and SHL had a duty to provide a reasonable explanation for the factual basis and
basis within the policy to deny a claim for pre-authorization.
23. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew that a preauthorization request
constitutes a notice of claim pursuant to NAC 686A.622 and requires compliance with NAC
686A.660 et. al. including:
• UHC and SHL had a duty to disclose all benefits, coverage or other provisions relating
to the request for preauthorization.
• UHC and SHL had a duty to provide an insured with reasonable assistance so the insured
can comply with policy conditions and any reasonable requirements of the insured.
24. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew that in processing a preauthorization
request it owed a duty to comply with NRS 686A.310(1) including:
• UHC and SHL cannot mispresent to insured pertinent facts or policy provisions relating
to a coverage at issue.
• UHC and SHL must adopt and implement reasonable standards for the prompt
investigation and processing of claims.
• UHC and SHL must effectuate a prompt, fair and equitable settlement where liability was
reasonably clear.
25. Bill needed treatment for his lung cancer, and he received treatment from various
medical professionals in the State of Nevada.
26. Bill went to the University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston,
Texas (“MD Anderson”) for evaluation and treatment.
27. MD Anderson Cancer Center is a center of excellence, and one of the highest-
ranked (if not the top ranked) cancer treatment centers in the world.

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
28. Among the services provided by its radiation oncology department, MD
Anderson provides radiation treatment for cancer in the form of a radiation therapy called proton
beam therapy (“PBT”).
29. PBT is not new or novel. PBT has been utilized to treat cancer in human beings
since the 1950s.
30. The FDA approved PBT for treating cancer decades ago.
31. Hundreds of published medical studies have demonstrated PBT is safe and
effective for treating cancer in humans, and PBT is used in almost thirty (30) currently active
proton centers in the United States and dozens more worldwide. More proton centers are
currently being constructed in the United States and around the world.
32. M.D Anderson and other qualified facilities have developed overwhelming
clinical evidence that PBT is safe and clinically effective to improve or preserve the health of
cancer patients.
33. Unlike other types of radiation therapy that use x-rays or photons to destroy
cancer cells, PBT uses a beam of special accelerated particles (protons) that carry a positive
charge.
34. There is no significant difference in the biological effects of protons versus
photons in treating cancer. In other words, both protons and photons are equally effective in
killing cancer cells.
35. However, proton beam therapy can deliver a dose of radiation in a more confined
way to the tumor tissue than traditional photon-based radiation therapy, which is called “intensity
modulated radiation therapy” or “IMRT.”
36. In cases where a patient’s cancer is adjacent to healthy critical structures, IMRT
can cause devastating side-effects by unintentionally radiating (and potentially necrosing) those
healthy critical structures. This unintended radiation of health structures can be avoided or
significantly lessened through the use of PBT.
37. After they enter the body, protons release most of their energy within the tumor
region and, unlike photons, deliver only a minimal dose beyond the tumor boundaries.

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
38. The greatest energy release with photon-based radiation is at the surface of the
tissue (when it first enters the body) and decreases exponentially the farther it travels through
the body.
39. Photons, by their very physical nature, travel all the way through the body, not
stopping at any defined point.
40. In contrast, the energy of a proton beam is released at the end of its path, a region
called the Bragg peak. Treating physicians and their supporting personnel are able to precisely
control the location of the Bragg peak so that they can control the precise location of the release
of the energy of a proton beam. Therefore, the energy of a proton beam can be delivered
precisely to the cancer site.
41. Accordingly, the use of PBT results in the precise delivery of radiation energy to
the cancer site while minimizing the delivery of radiation energy to healthy tissues, decreasing
the chances of side effects associated with delivering radiation energy to healthy tissues.
42. Because of PBT’s physical properties, it is safe, effective, and particularly useful
when the targeted tumor site is in close proximity to one or more critical structures in the patient’s
body and sparing the surrounding healthy tissue cannot be adequately achieved with photon-
based radiation therapy.
43. Bill’s highly-trained and eminently qualified treating physicians at MD Anderson
recommended that Bill undergo proton beam therapy.
44. Bill’s cancer was in close proximity to one or more critical structures.
45. PBT was appropriate for treatment of Bill’s cancer including the treatment
provided the best chance of delivering the beneficial impact of radiation treatment, coupled with
the best chance of avoiding the potentially devastating side effects associated with using IMRT.
46. Bill’s eminently qualified radiation oncologist made the clinical decision that Bill
would benefit most from PBT.
47. Treatment with proton beam therapy was needed to improve and/or preserve
Bill’s health because it would precisely target the tumor while minimizing damages to adjacent
health tissue.

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
48. Treatment with proton beam therapy was consistent with diagnosis and treatment
of Bill’s lung cancer.
49. M.D Anderson could provide the PBT services to Bill on an outpatient basis and
consistent with the most appropriate level of service that could be safely provided to Bill.
50. PBT was not solely for the convenience of Bill or M.D Anderson.
51. On Bill’s behalf, MD Anderson submitted a request for preauthorization to SHL
to approve treatment with proton beam therapy.
52. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that
the use of PBT is effective to improve or preserve the health of insureds who, like Bill, are
diagnosed with cancer, including lung cancer.
53. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew or recklessly disregarded that facilities
like M.D Anderson could safely provide PBT to an insured who, like Bill, was diagnosed with
cancer, including an insured with lung cancer.
54. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew or recklessly disregarded the PBT
being sought by Bill was not solely for the convenience of Bill or M.D Anderson.
55. UHC and SHL had adopted a policy and plan to disapprove PBT treatment for its
insureds suffering from cancer if at all possible, regardless of the opinions of highly qualified
treating physicians and the weight of scientific and medical information supporting the use of
PBT on such insureds.
56. UHC and SHL implemented a system by which it consciously refused to consider
the basis for a treating physician’s recommendation of PBT or the reasons that the physician
believed the patient would benefit from PBT when deciding to deny its insureds’ requests for
coverage for PBT treatment.
57. UHC and SHL implemented a system by which it would deny a request for
coverage for PBT without a fair, thorough and objective investigation, evaluation or reasonable
consideration by appropriately qualified and trained personnel of the legal issues involving
insurance coverage and the medical issues involving the clinical judgment of the treating
physician and clinical condition of the insured.

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
58. UHC and SHL implemented its system of considering its insureds’ requests for
coverage as part of a plan to favor its financial interest over the well-being of its insured.
59. Specifically, IMRT is less expensive than PBT.
60. UHC and SHL developed its bad faith system for handling insureds’ requests for
coverage for financial reasons and to place its own financial interests ahead of the health and
well-being of its insureds.
61. UHC and SHL was willing to subject Bill to the devastating side effects of IMRT
rather than pay for its insured to receive the PBT Bill’s MD Anderson physicians recommended
would be superior to IMRT.
62. Through its policy and procedures, UHC and SHL, without disclosure to the
insured within the terms of the policy and in known violation of the insurance policy and Nevada
law relating to good faith and fair dealing and the interpretation of an insurance contract, chose
to exclude PBT from coverage.
63. After receiving M.D Anderson’s request for coverage for PBT on Bill’s behalf,
UHC and SHL acted consistently with its system of handling insureds’ requests for coverage
described above.
64. UHC and SHL immediately denied the request for coverage.
65. UHC and SHL intentionally and knowingly failed and refused to conduct a
prompt, thorough and objective investigation or evaluation of Bill’s request for coverage for
PBT.
66. In denying the request for coverage, UHC and SHL misrepresented and
manipulated pertinent facts to manufacture a pretextual basis to deny that request:
• It represented that PBT was clinically unproven when in fact it is not.
• It represented that there is no evidence of “definitive” conclusions “about the safety and
efficacy of PBT” when in fact there are.
• It represented there is “limited” clinical evidence that directly compares PBT to other
types of radiation, when in fact there is such evidence.
67. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew that PBT was clinically proven.

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
68. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew “definitive conclusion” is an inherently
ambiguous term and is not something required by the insurance policy.
69. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew “limited clinic evidence” is an
inherently ambiguous term and not relevant to the terms of the insurance policy.
70. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL knew there was clinical evidence supporting
the use of proton beam therapy as a more medically effective therapy providing less risk of side-
effects than other types radiation, including IMRT.
71. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL further knew that it was the role of doctors
in consultation with patients to utilize clinical judgment to decide which radiation therapy is in
the clinical interest of the patient.
72. At all relevant times, UHC and SHL further knew that if a doctor’s recommended
treatment is the treatment providing the best chance of the best outcome to the patient, and that
treatment was well-established as safe and effective, UHC and SHL should not substitute its
clinical judgment for that of qualified doctors in consultation with his/her patients to decide
which radiation therapy is in the clinical interest of the patient.
73. In denying the request for coverage, UHC and SHL failed to properly disclose
Bill’s appeal rights to him.
74. Based upon information and belief, UHC and SHL failed to disclose Bill’s appeal
rights to him because it knew any appeal of the denial for the request for coverage would be a
sham and automatically, without any meaningful review, result in upholding the denial of the
original request for coverage.
75. Based upon information and belief, Bill’s treating radiation oncologist from MD
Anderson attempted to convince the medical director for UHC and SHL that PBT was the best
and most appropriate treatment for Bill, but the medical director, who is not a radiation
oncologist, refused to consider the MD Anderson radiation oncologist’s opinion.
76. UHC and SHL’s denial of Bill’s claim for PBT was signed by Dr. Shamoon
Ahmad on behalf of UHC. The denial was based on a “Commercial Medical Policy” which was
written and issued by home office personnel at UHC. This “Commercial Medical Policy” is

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
designed and implemented by UHC as a tool to wrongly and dishonestly deny the claims of its
insureds.
77. The “Medical Policy” referenced in the letter sent to Bill by Dr. Ahmad is a UHC
policy.
78. Dr. Ahmad is not a radiation oncologist.
79. Dr. Ahmad is not qualified by education, training or experience to make a clinical
decision about what radiation therapy modality is in the clinical interest of a patient and is not
qualified to have made such a decision about Bill’s treatment.
80. Dr. Ahmad is not qualified by education, training or experience to render a legal
opinion about whether insurance coverage for PBT for Bill under the circumstances presented
to him in Bill’s case existed or not under the terms and provisions of Bill’s insurance policy
issued to him by UHC and SHL.
81. Based upon information and belief, MD Anderson had knowledge of UHC and
SHL’s practice of denying PBT even when such denials were inaccurate and unsupported, and
thus also requested preauthorization of IMRT.
82. Pursuant to its policies and practices, UHC and SHL approved the IMRT without
investigation and without consideration of whether IMRT was in Bill’s interest.
83. UHC and SHL hold PBT to a different standard than IMRT when determining if
there is coverage under its insurance policies issued to its insureds.
84. UHC and SHL consciously placed Bill in the position of either undergoing IMRT
or delaying PBT with the hope that SHL would reverse its denial.
85. Bill chose to undergo IMRT therapy because doing so under the circumstances,
where SHL had denied the best and most appropriate treatment for him, was his only viable
option.
86. As a result of UHC and SHL’s denial of coverage for PBT, Bill was forced to
undergo the less-precise radiation modality, photon-based IMRT, thus making it more likely
radiation energy would be applied to healthy tissues in close proximity to his cancer.

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
87. When UHC and SHL denied Bill’s request for coverage, UHC and SHL knew or
proceeded in conscious disregard for the fact Bill would not receive the treatment that gave him
the best chance and opportunity to extend his life by curing his cancer while also giving him the
best chance at the best possible quality of life following radiation treatment. By virtue of its
actions, UHC and SHL deprived Bill of the radiation treatment he needed (according to his MD
Anderson doctors) to maximize his chances of survival while minimizing the possibility of
potential devastating and even fatal side effects.
88. When UHC and SHL denied the request for coverage, UHC and SHL knew or
proceeded with conscious disregard for the fact Bill would be subjected to IMRT and its
potentially devastating or even fatal side effects under Bill’s clinical condition.
89. As a result of the denial of coverage for proton beam therapy, Bill was forced to
undergo the less-precise radiation modality, photon-based IMRT, thus making it more likely
radiation energy would be applied to healthy tissues in close proximity to his cancer.
90. During Bill’s life he incurred personal injuries and physical and mental pain,
suffering, emotional distress, and anxiety as a legal cause of UHC and SHL’s conduct including:
• The side effects from the IMRT that caused physical injury, physical pain, mental
suffering, emotional distress, and anxiety.
• Physical pain, mental suffering, emotional distress, and anxiety because of, but
not limited, to the fact SHL interfered with his physicians’ advice and precluded him
access to the therapy that gave him the best opportunity to survive and because he knew
that he was not able to access the therapy recommended by his doctor.
91. Without the PBT, Bill died on March 12, 2017.
92. UHC and SHL’s conduct in denying the PBT was a legal cause of Bill’s death on
March 12, 2017.
93. UHC and SHL’s conduct in denying the PBT was a legal cause of Bill’s mental
suffering and emotional distress. UHC and SHL’s denial of the PBT Bill needed legally caused
Bill’s survival from cancer to be shortened and caused him to die prematurely on March 12,
2017. As such, UHC and SHL’s conduct caused Bill’s death.

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
94. When UHC and SHL denied the request for coverage, Bill suffered an economic
loss. He lost the economic value of the benefits of his policy to pay for PBT treatment.
95. The value of that benefit is in the amount of the cost of the PBT treatment and in
excess of $15,000.
96. In addition, as a result of SHL’s denial of the claim for PBT treatment, Bill and
his Estate have suffered other economic losses including:
• Bill incurred expenses related to the IMRT therapy including boarding expenses and
expenses for pain medications.
• Bill was forced to purchased a different vehicle as a cause of the side-effects of IMRT
and the ongoing effects of the cancer that PBT could have avoided and/or treated.
• A portion of a family business was sold because Bill, following IMRT and without PBT,
required more assistance from family members.
• Bill purchased additional equipment to deal with the side-effects of IMRT, including a
chair.
• Expenses, for things such as food items intended to deal with the malnutrition Bill
suffered from, in response to the IMRT side effect
• The cost of filing this lawsuit.
III. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Contract)
97. Plaintiffs incorporate the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 96 as if fully set
forth herein.
98. An insurance contract existed between Bill and UHC and SHL. The contract
provided coverage for the proton beam therapy requested to treat Bill.
99. The PBT recommended by M.D Anderson was covered under the terms of the
subject insurance policy issued by UHC and SHL to Bill.
100. UHC and SHL breached the contract by wrongfully denying coverage for PBT.
///
///

13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
101. As a legal and proximate cause of UHC and SHL’s conduct, the Estate, pursuant
to NRS 41.100, has standing to recover the lost value of the benefits of Bill’s policy to pay for
PBT treatment.
102. As a legal and proximate result, Bill, through his estate, has sustained damages in
an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00). Sandy, as the administrator of
Bill’s estate, has standing to recover those damages.
IV. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
(Bad Faith)
forth herein.
104. There is an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing in the insurance
contract that Defendants will not do anything to injure the rights of Bill as their insured.
105. As set forth herein, Defendants breached its duty of good faith and fair dealing to
Bill including: (1) unreasonably refusing to authorize and pay for PBT; (2) failing to conduct a
prompt, fair and through investigation and evaluation of Bill’s claim for PBT; (3) failing to take
steps to reasonably assist Bill in obtaining the benefits of his insurance policy; (4) interpreting
its insurance policy in an unreasonable manner and inconsistent with law of Nevada; (5) adopting
and implementing an unreasonable, unfair, bad faith system by which it systematically and
without just cause excludes PBT from the coverage for its insureds, including Bill; (6) failing to
consistently consider it insured’s interests as at least equal to its own interests; and (7) other
wrongful conduct.
106. The denial of the request for coverage caused economic loss including as more
specifically set forth at paragraphs 94-96.
107. As a legal and proximate cause of UHC and SHL’s conduct, Bill suffered special
and general damages including personal injuries, physical and mental pain and suffering,
anxiety, and emotional distress in an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).

14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
108. As a legal and proximate cause of UHC and SHL’s conduct, Bill lost the chance
of survival, his life was shortened and he died, and he sustained conscious pain and suffering in
an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
109. Pursuant to NRS 41.100, Plaintiff Sandy, as the administrator, has standing to
recover Bill’s special and general damages sustained before his death.
110. If the jury finds that UHC and SHL’s conduct was a legal or proximate cause of
Bill’s death and pursuant to NRS 41.085, Sandy, Tyler, and BJ, as the heirs of Bill, have standing
to recover Bill’s conscious pain, suffering, anxiety, and emotional distress incurred or sustained
before his death.
111. In engaging in its bad faith conduct, UHC and SHL has acted fraudulently,
oppressively, and in malicious disregard for the rights of Bill. Sandy, as the Special
Administrator of the Estate, has standing pursuant to NRS 41.085 and NRS 41.100 to recover
punitive damages by way of punishment and deterrence in an amount to be determined at trial.
V. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
(Breach of Nevada Unfair Claims Settlement Practices Act)
forth herein.
113. UHC and SHL are and at all times mentioned herein entities regulated by Title
57 of the Nevada Revised Statutes.
114. UHC and SHL violated NRS 686A.310(1) include:
• They violated NRS 686A.310(1)(e) by failing to authorize and pay for proton beam
therapy where UHC and SHL’s liability to make such payments was reasonably clear
• They violated NRS 686A.310(1)(a) by misrepresenting pertinent facts of an insurance
policy provision relating to coverages at issue including as set forth more specifically at
paragraphs 55-62, 66-73.
• They violated NRS 686.310(1)(c) failed to adopt and implement reasonable standards for
the investigation of claims involving proton beam therapy.

15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
115. As a legal and proximate cause of UHC and SHL’s conduct, Bill suffered special
and general damages including personal injuries, physical and mental pain and suffering,
anxiety, and emotional distress in an amount in excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
116. Pursuant to NRS 41.100, Plaintiff Sandy, as the administrator, has standing to
recover Bill’s damages sustained before his death.
Bill’s death and pursuant to NRS 41.085, Sandy, Tyler, and BJ, as the heirs of Bill, have standing
to recover Bill’s conscious pain, suffering, anxiety, and emotional distress incurred or sustained
before his death.
Bill’s death and pursuant to NRS 41.085, Sandy, Tyler, and BJ have sustained grief, sorrow, loss
companionship, society, and comfort because of Bill’s death and in an amount in excess of
Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00).
119. In engaging in its bad faith conduct, UHC and SHL have acted fraudulently,
oppressively, and in malicious disregard for the rights of Bill. Sandy, as the Special
Administrator of the Estate, has standing pursuant to NRS 41.085 and NRS 41.100 to recover
punitive damages by way of punishment and deterrence in an amount to be determined at trial.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs prays for judgment against Defendant as follows:
1. Contractual, special, general and punitive damages, according to proof but in
excess of Fifteen Thousand Dollars ($15,000.00);
2. Pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law on contract;
3. An award of attorney’s fees and costs of suit incurred; and
4. For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.
///
///
///
///

16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AFFIRMATION
Pursuant to NRS 239B.030
The undersigned does hereby affirm that the preceding document does not contain the
Social Security number of any person.
DATED this 15th
day of July 2019.
MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
/ s/ Matthew L. Sharp
Matthew L. Sharp
432 Ridge Street
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 324-1500
JURY TRIAL DEMAND
Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury of all issues so triable.
DATED this 15th
day of July 2019.
MATTHEW L. SHARP, LTD.
/ s/ Matthew L. Sharp
Matthew L. Sharp
432 Ridge Street
Reno, NV 89501
(775) 324-1500

17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that I am an employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd., and that on this date,
a true and correct copy of the foregoing FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT and JURY
DEMAND was electronically filed and served on counsel through the Court’s electronic
service system pursuant to Administrative Order 14-2 and NEFCR 9, via the electronic mail
address notes below:
D. Lee Roberts, Jr. Esq.; lroberts@wwhgd.com
Marisa Rodriguez, Esq.; mrodriguez@wwhgd.com
Ryan T. Gormley, Esq.; rgormley@wwhgd.com
WEINBERG WHEELER HUDGINS GUNN & DIAL LLC
6385 S. Rainbow Blvd., Ste. 400
Las Vegas, NV 89118
Attorneys for Defendant SHL
DATED this 15th
day of July 2019.
/s/ Cristin B. Sharp
An employee of Matthew L. Sharp, Ltd.

$200 Million Award for Matt Sharp Client

More Related Content

What's hot (18)

Similar to $200 Million Award for Matt Sharp Client (20)

More from SharpLaw (14)

Recently uploaded (20)

$200 Million Award for Matt Sharp Client