Phillips used in touching Webb’s chest was excessive and unreasonable. Although the district court was incorrect in concluding that the Coverdell Act was not an affirmative defense, we nevertheless affirm the district court’s conclusion as to CCSD and Phillips’ liability and damages award for Webb’s physical therapy treatments and family practitioner visit. Our affirmance on these points is based on our conclusions that substantial evidence supports the district court’s finding that Phillips’ contact with Webb was excessive and unreasonable and that CCSD and Phillips failed to present any medical ev idence to dispute the physical therapy treatments that Webb received or his visit to the family practitioner. See Hotel Riviera, Inc. v. Torres, 91 Nev. 399, 403, 632 P.2d 1155, 1158 (1981) (<HOLDING>). Psychological services rendered by an
holding that a sentencing determination will not be disturbed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion by the district court holding that if a decision below is correct it will not be disturbed on appeal even though the lower court relied upon wrong reasons holding that if a trial court reaches the right result but for the wrong reasons it will be upheld if there is any basis which would support the judgment in the record recognizing that appellate court may affirm result on reasons different from those on which lower court relied holding that an order will be affirmed when correct even if the reasons given by the trial judge were incorrect