 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino v. Reeves11/26/1997
medical examination describing the nature of injuries sustained by Ms. Reeves in the subject industrial accident, and in the absence of any medical that Ms. Reeves suffered no injury or aggravation arising out of the industrial accident, it is not easy to understand how the hearing officer could have denied this claim. The hearing officer was clearly acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner in deciding to deny this claim on the ground that Ms. Reeves' injuries "owe their etiology" to a previous, non-industrial accident.
ERROR ON THE PART OF THE APPEALS OFFICER
We have reviewed several "irregularities" in the manner that this claim was handled by Bally's administrator and by the hearing officer, and have come to the Conclusion that these irregularities are sufficient in themselves to warrant the remand to the administrator ordered by the district court. This appeal, however, is from the district court's order setting aside the decision of the appeals officer.
NRS 233B.135 governs judicial review of the final decision of an administrative agency, in this case represented by the decision of the appeals officer. Under this statute, the supreme court is authorized to correct "errors of law" and
to review the evidence presented to the agency in order to determine whether the agency's decision was arbitrary or capricious and was thus an abuse of the agency's discretion.
Clements v. Airport Authority, 111 Nev. 717, 721, 896 P.2d 458, 460 (1995). Further, the decision of an administrative agency will be affirmed only if there is substantial evidence to support the decision. SIIS v. Swinney, 103 Nev. 17, 20, 731 P.2d 359, 361 (1987). Substantial evidence is that which "'a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.'" State Emp. Security v. Hilton Hotels, 102 Nev. 606, 608, 729 P.2d 497, 498 (1986) (quoting Richardson v. Perales, 402 U.S. 389 (1971)).
We conclude that the district court was quite correct in its decision to "set aside" the appeal officer's ruling on the ground that the record was "without substantial evidence to support the decision of the appeals officer." From our discussion relating to the hearing officer's decision in this case, no substantial evidence exists that is adequate for a reasonable mind to accept the Conclusion that the non-industrial accident was the sole cause of Ms. Reeves' present injuries and complaints. We therefore affirm the district court's judgment in this regard.
Additionally, the appeals officer made an erroneous "Conclusion of law" when she concluded that the "objective medical evidence does not establish a change in Claimant's condition between the first serious automobile accident and the second minor accident" and that objective medical evidence did not support a finding of "a medical condition causally related to the September 25, accident." The appeals officer made an error of law by requiring "objective medical evidence" to support a claim for the kind of soft tissue injury suffered by Ms. Reeves by reason of a typical "cervical sprain/strain." Such injuries rarely manifest themselves in objective terms, confirmable by x-ray or other physical means of establishing "objective" physical harm. If we were to accept the appeals officer's Conclusion of law and declare that soft tissue injuries must, in industrial accident claims cases, be established by "objective evidence," we would work a great mischief indeed to workers' compensation law. The kinds of injuries sustained by Ms. Reeves can be reliably established by any reasonable and probable medical testimony, independent of "objective" evidence of the injury.
The hearing officer, by ruling that Ms. R
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Nevada Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|