Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 616A - INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE: ADMINISTRATION
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.010 (2026)

Legislative declarations: Statutory construction; repudiation of common law; basis of provisions; balanced interpretation required

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 616A.010  Legislative declarations: Statutory construction; repudiation of common law; basis of provisions; balanced interpretation required.  The Legislature hereby determines and declares that:

      1.  The provisions of chapters 616A to 617, inclusive, of NRS must be interpreted and construed to ensure the quick and efficient payment of compensation to employees who are injured or disabled at a reasonable cost to the employers who are subject to the provisions of those chapters;

      2.  A claim for compensation filed pursuant to the provisions of chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, or chapter 617 of NRS must be decided on its merit and not according to the principle of common law that requires statutes governing workers’ compensation to be liberally construed because they are remedial in nature;

      3.  The provisions of chapters 616A to 617, inclusive, of NRS are based on a renunciation of the rights and defenses of employers and employees recognized at common law; and

      4.  For the accomplishment of these purposes, the provisions of chapters 616A to 617, inclusive, of NRS must not be interpreted or construed broadly or liberally in favor of an employee who is injured or disabled or the dependents of the employee, or in such a manner as to favor the rights and interests of an employer over the rights and interests of an employee who is injured or disabled or his or her dependents.

      (Added to NRS by 1993, 660)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 616.012)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2024 · leading case: Banegas Ex Rel. Banegas v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 19 P.3d 245 (Nev. 2001).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Banegas Ex Rel. Banegas v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 19 P.3d 245 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 20× “See NRS 616A.010 (substituted in 1995 recodification for NRS 616.”
McClanahan v. Raley's, Inc., 34 P.3d 573 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 8× “*928 Such weighing of the evidence is a proper responsibility of the fact finder and is permissible under NRS 616A.010. The appeals officer’s decision to accord greater weight to two experts who had personally examined McCIanahan is not tantamount to applying the treating…”
Valdez v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., 162 P.3d 148 (Nev. 2007). · cites it 4× “, concurring. I agree that a neutral interpretation of our ambiguous workers' compensation statutory scheme compels the result reached by the majority.”
Elizondo v. Hood Mach., Inc., 312 P.3d 479 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 2× “012(3), which has been renumbered as NRS 616A.010). While we questioned the Legislature’s intent to completely bar issue and claim preclusion in the workers’ compensation context, we nevertheless concluded that the Legislature intended the terms of the workers’ compensation…”
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 184 P.3d 378 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 2× “Levinson asserts that these requirements have a different meaning since the Legislature enacted the neutrality rule, NRS 616A.010. It further argues that because Milko’s doctors used terms that could indicate they considered her condition to be an occupational disease,…”
Tarango v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 25 P.3d 175 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “[24] NRS 616A.010. [25] NRS 616C.580 states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided in this section, vocational rehabilitation services must not be provided outside of this state.”
Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino v. Phillips, 240 P.3d 2 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 2× “Maintaining such a balance satisfies the requirement in NRS 616A.010 that Nevada’s workers’ compensation laws be interpreted in a neutral manner.”
Grover C. Dils Med. Ctr. v. Menditto, 112 P.3d 1093 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “To address the crisis in part, the 1993 Legislature enacted NRS 616A.010(2), which abrogated the previous common-law rule requiring broad or "liberal" construction of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act in favor of injured or disabled employees.”
Star Ins. Co. v. Neighbors, 138 P.3d 507 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “See NRS 616A.010. Under the common law prior to the enactment of NRS 616A.”
Mitchell v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 111 P.3d 1104 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “Moreover, although the positional-risk test is consistent with a liberal statutory construction favoring the claimant in workers’ compensation claims, NRS 616A.010(2) specifically abrogates the common-law requirement that workers’ compensation statutes be construed liberally…”
Harris v. Rio Hotel & Casino, Inc., 25 P.3d 206 (Nev. 2001). · cites it 2× “[56] See NRS 616A.010. [57] See NRS 616B.612. [58] See NRS 616B.”
Vredenburg Ex Rel. Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 188 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2008). “See NRS 616A.010(2). 34 See NRS 616C. 150(1).”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.010(1) — 1 case
Barrick Goldstrike Mine v. Peterson, 2 P.3d 850 (Nev. 2000).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.010(2) — 5 cases
Valdez v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., 162 P.3d 148 (Nev. 2007). “, concurring. I agree that a neutral interpretation of our ambiguous workers' compensation statutory scheme compels the result reached by the majority.”
Grover C. Dils Med. Ctr. v. Menditto, 112 P.3d 1093 (Nev. 2005). “To address the crisis in part, the 1993 Legislature enacted NRS 616A.010(2), which abrogated the previous common-law rule requiring broad or "liberal" construction of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act in favor of injured or disabled employees.”
Vredenburg Ex Rel. Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 188 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2008). “See NRS 616A.010(2). 34 See NRS 616C. 150(1).”
Mitchell v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 111 P.3d 1104 (Nev. 2005). “Moreover, although the positional-risk test is consistent with a liberal statutory construction favoring the claimant in workers’ compensation claims, NRS 616A.010(2) specifically abrogates the common-law requirement that workers’ compensation statutes be construed liberally…”
Valdez v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev, 146 P.3d 250 (Nev. 2006).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.010(3) — 4 cases
Baiguen v. Harrah's Las Vegas, LLC, 426 P.3d 586 (Nev. 2018).
Baiguen Vs. Harrah's Las Vegas, LLC, 2018 NV 71 (Nev. 2018).
Baiguen Vs. Harrah's Las Vegas, LLC, 2018 NV 71 (Nev. 2018).
Baiguen Vs. Harrah's Las Vegas, LLC, 2018 NV 71 (Nev. 2018).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616A.010(4) — 5 cases
McClanahan v. Raley's, Inc., 34 P.3d 573 (Nev. 2001). “*928 Such weighing of the evidence is a proper responsibility of the fact finder and is permissible under NRS 616A.010. The appeals officer’s decision to accord greater weight to two experts who had personally examined McCIanahan is not tantamount to applying the treating…”
Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino v. Phillips, 240 P.3d 2 (Nev. 2010). “Maintaining such a balance satisfies the requirement in NRS 616A.010 that Nevada’s workers’ compensation laws be interpreted in a neutral manner.”
Mitchell v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 111 P.3d 1104 (Nev. 2005). “Moreover, although the positional-risk test is consistent with a liberal statutory construction favoring the claimant in workers’ compensation claims, NRS 616A.010(2) specifically abrogates the common-law requirement that workers’ compensation statutes be construed liberally…”
Bob Allyn Masonry v. Murphy, 183 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2008).
State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75 (N.D. 2012).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.