NRS
616C.025 Recovery of compensation barred if notice of injury or claim for
compensation is not filed; exceptions.
1. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 2, an employee or, in the event of the death of the employee, a
dependent of the employee, is barred from recovering compensation pursuant to
the provisions of chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, of NRS if the employee or
dependent, as applicable, fails to file a notice of injury pursuant to NRS 616C.015 or a claim for compensation
pursuant to NRS 616C.020.
2. An insurer may excuse the failure to
file a notice of injury or a claim for compensation pursuant to the provisions
of this section if:
(a) The injury to the employee or another cause
beyond the control of the employee prevented the employee from providing the
notice or claim;
(b) The failure was caused by the employee’s or
dependent’s mistake or ignorance of fact or of law;
(c) The failure was caused by the physical or
mental inability of the employee or the dependent; or
(d) The failure was caused by fraud,
misrepresentation or deceit.
(Added to NRS by 1993,
661)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 616.5011)
Notes of Decisions
Barrick Goldstrike Mine v. Peterson, 2 P.3d 850 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 25× “For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the appeals officer interpreted NRS 616C.025(1) erroneously. However, we further conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the appeals officer’s alternative finding that Peterson’s failure to comply with NRS 616C.”
Grover C. Dils Med. Ctr. v. Menditto, 112 P.3d 1093 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 2× “015(1), which requires an employee to provide the employer with written notice of any work-related injury "as soon as practicable, but within 7 days after the accident," and NRS 616C.025, which provides that, with certain exceptions, an injured employee is barred from receiving…”
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 184 P.3d 378 (Nev. 2008).
“The appeals officer found that Milko’s failure to follow the proper notification procedure was excused under NRS 616C.025(2)(b), since she had mistakenly believed, initially, that she was suffering from a heart attack and she was unaware of the connection between her condition…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.025(1) — 1 case
Barrick Goldstrike Mine v. Peterson, 2 P.3d 850 (Nev. 2000).
“For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the appeals officer interpreted NRS 616C.025(1) erroneously. However, we further conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the appeals officer’s alternative finding that Peterson’s failure to comply with NRS 616C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.025(2) — 1 case
Barrick Goldstrike Mine v. Peterson, 2 P.3d 850 (Nev. 2000).
“For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the appeals officer interpreted NRS 616C.025(1) erroneously. However, we further conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the appeals officer’s alternative finding that Peterson’s failure to comply with NRS 616C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.025(2)(b) — 2 cases
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 184 P.3d 378 (Nev. 2008).
“The appeals officer found that Milko’s failure to follow the proper notification procedure was excused under NRS 616C.025(2)(b), since she had mistakenly believed, initially, that she was suffering from a heart attack and she was unaware of the connection between her condition…”
Barrick Goldstrike Mine v. Peterson, 2 P.3d 850 (Nev. 2000).
“For the reasons discussed herein, we conclude that the appeals officer interpreted NRS 616C.025(1) erroneously. However, we further conclude that substantial evidence in the record supports the appeals officer’s alternative finding that Peterson’s failure to comply with NRS 616C.”
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.