Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 616C - INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE: BENEFITS FOR INJURIES OR DEATH
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.150 (2026)

Compensation prohibited unless preponderance of evidence establishes that injury arose out of and in course of employment; rebuttable presumption if notice of injury is filed after termination of employment

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 616C.150  Compensation prohibited unless preponderance of evidence establishes that injury arose out of and in course of employment; rebuttable presumption if notice of injury is filed after termination of employment.

      1.  An injured employee or the dependents of the injured employee are not entitled to receive compensation pursuant to the provisions of chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, of NRS unless the employee or the dependents establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s injury arose out of and in the course of his or her employment.

      2.  For the purposes of chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, of NRS, if the employee files a notice of an injury pursuant to NRS 616C.015 after his or her employment has been terminated for any reason, there is a rebuttable presumption that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his or her employment.

      (Added to NRS by 1993, 662)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 616.5015)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 17 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1997–2022 · leading case: Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 184 P.3d 378 (Nev. 2008).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 184 P.3d 378 (Nev. 2008). · cites it 10× “35 In presenting the bill that enacted NRS 616C.150, a senator discussed the NRS 616C.”
Buma Vs. Providence Corp. Dev., 2019 NV 60 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 4× “" NRS 616C.150(1). This rule generally requires that the injury happened at work and was due to the work itself or a condition of the workplace.”
Mitchell v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 111 P.3d 1104 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 3× “As we recognized in Gorsky, NRS 616C.150 imposes the burden on the claimant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment.”
Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino v. Phillips, 240 P.3d 2 (Nev. 2010). · cites it 2× “In this appeal, we address the standard to be applied to determine whether an em *348 ployee seeking workers’ compensation benefits has demonstrated, pursuant to NRS 616C.150(1), that her injury “arose out of” her employment.”
Mgm Mirage v. Cotton, 116 P.3d 56 (Nev. 2005). “MGM denied Cotton’s workers’ compensation claim, reasoning that Cotton had failed to establish that her injury arose out of and in the course of employment under NRS 616C.150. A hearing officer affirmed MGM’s determination, noting that “the injury is stated to have occurred…”
Rio Suite Hotel & Casino v. Gorsky, 939 P.2d 1043 (Nev. 1997). “5015(1) was replaced by NRS 616C.150. 2 NRS 616.020 states: “Accident” means an unexpected or unforeseen event happening suddenly and violently, with or without human fault, and producing at the time objective symptoms of an injury.”
Bob Allyn Masonry v. Murphy, 183 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2008). “’ ” 10 Noting the positional-risk test’s inconsistency with NRS 616C.150(l)’s requirements and Nevada’s statutory rule requiring neutral construction of the Nevada Industrial In *284 surance Act, we rejected the positional-risk test and reaffirmed that an employee must show a…”
Liberty Mut. v. Leon (Nev. 2013). · cites it 4× “Vater's report was credible and that respondent had met her burden under NRS 616C.150 to establish that her injury was industrial.”
Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Servs., Inc. Vs. Figueroa, 2020 NV 51 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “NRS 616C.150(1) provides that an injured employee may receive compensation if he or she establishes "by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his or her employment.”
Demaranville Vs. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.'s, Inc., 2019 NV 35 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “052(3) (requiring testing for certain diseases 12 months after termination of employment that establishes lifetime eligibility for claims for those diseases); NRS 616C.150 (providing that employees may show after terminating employment that an industrial injury claim was…”
State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75 (N.D. 2012). “Nevada likewise requires claimants to prove their injury “arose out of and in the course of” employment, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.150(1), and the Nevada Supreme Court has considered an unexplained fall case involving a claimant who urged the adoption of the positional risk…”
Morgan v. Mgm grand/mgm Resorts Int'l. (Nev. 2014). · cites it 2× “NRS 616C.150 Having reviewed the parties' briefs and appendix, we conclude that the appeals officer did not abuse her discretion in finding that Morgan failed to establish that he sustained an industrial injury.”
Show all 17 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.150(1) — 10 cases
Buma Vs. Providence Corp. Dev., 2019 NV 60 (Nev. 2019). “" NRS 616C.150(1). This rule generally requires that the injury happened at work and was due to the work itself or a condition of the workplace.”
Rio All Suite Hotel & Casino v. Phillips, 240 P.3d 2 (Nev. 2010). “In this appeal, we address the standard to be applied to determine whether an em *348 ployee seeking workers’ compensation benefits has demonstrated, pursuant to NRS 616C.150(1), that her injury “arose out of” her employment.”
Mitchell v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 111 P.3d 1104 (Nev. 2005). “As we recognized in Gorsky, NRS 616C.150 imposes the burden on the claimant to show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the injury arose out of and in the course of the employment.”
Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Servs., Inc. Vs. Figueroa, 2020 NV 51 (Nev. 2020). “NRS 616C.150(1) provides that an injured employee may receive compensation if he or she establishes "by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee's injury arose out of and in the course of his or her employment.”
State v. Morin, 2012 ND 75 (N.D. 2012). “Nevada likewise requires claimants to prove their injury “arose out of and in the course of” employment, Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.150(1), and the Nevada Supreme Court has considered an unexplained fall case involving a claimant who urged the adoption of the positional risk…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.150(2) — 1 case
Law Offices of Barry Levinson, P.C. v. Milko, 184 P.3d 378 (Nev. 2008). “35 In presenting the bill that enacted NRS 616C.150, a senator discussed the NRS 616C.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.150(l) — 1 case
Bob Allyn Masonry v. Murphy, 183 P.3d 126 (Nev. 2008). “’ ” 10 Noting the positional-risk test’s inconsistency with NRS 616C.150(l)’s requirements and Nevada’s statutory rule requiring neutral construction of the Nevada Industrial In *284 surance Act, we rejected the positional-risk test and reaffirmed that an employee must show a…”
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.