text:                  (concluding that the accrual date for NRS 41A.097(2)'s one-year statute of
                   limitations ordinarily presents a question of fact to be decided by the jury,
                   and a district court may make such a determination as a matter of law
                   only when evidence irrefutably demonstrates the accrual date);       Wood v.
                   Safeway, Inc., 121 Nev. 724, 729, 121 P.3d 1026, 1029 (2005) (holding that
                   this court reviews summary judgments de novo and summary judgment is
                   only appropriate if the pleadings and other evidence on file, viewed in the
                   light most favorable to the nonmoving party, demonstrate that no genuine
                   issue of material fact remains in dispute).
                               The medical records show that the cause of appellant's
                   husband's death was not known by the doctors on the day that he died,
                   June 11, 2011, and that appellant did not become aware of the cause of his
                   death until July 2011 when she received the death certificate. Although
                   appellant testified that she felt on the day that he died that something
                   more could have been done for her husband, she also testified that it was
                   not until she received the death certificate that she believed her husband
                   had been misdiagnosed by respondent Dr. Hornback. This court has
                   previously concluded that the failure to provide an explanation for cause of
                   death is not an acknowledgement of negligence, and that "it is unlikely
                   that an ordinarily prudent person would begin investigating whether a
                   cause of action might exist" the same day they are informed of the death
                   or serious injury of their loved one. Winn, 128 Nev., Adv. Op. 23, 277 P.3d
                   at 463. Therefore, as the evidence does not irrefutably demonstrate that
                   appellant discovered her claim on the date of her husband's death, the
                   district court erred in finding as a matter of law that the claims against
                   respondents filed on June 21, 2012, were "filed more than a year after
  
  
  
  SUPREME COURT
          OF
       NEVADA
                                                         2
  (0) 1947A    e
                   [appellant] acquired the necessary knowledge to trigger the [one-year]
                   limitations period." Accordingly, we
                                  ORDER the judgment of the district court REVERSED AND
                   REMAND this matter to the district court for proceedings consistent with
                   this order.'
  
  
  
  
                                                               Pickering
  
  
  
  
                   cc:   Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge
                         J. Douglas Clark, Settlement Judge
                         Law Offices of Steven F. Bus, Ltd.
                         Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders
                         Piscevich & Fenner
                         Washoe District Court Clerk
  
  
  
  
                         'In light of this order, we need not address the other arguments
                   raised by the parties, which were also not addressed by the district court.
  
  
  
  
  SUPREME COURT
          OF
       NEVADA
                                                          3
  (0) 1947A    e
  