Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.160 (2026)

Newly developed injury or disease: Inclusion in original claim for compensation; limitation

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 616C.160  Newly developed injury or disease: Inclusion in original claim for compensation; limitation.  If, after a claim for compensation is filed pursuant to NRS 616C.020:

      1.  The injured employee seeks treatment from a physician or chiropractic physician for a newly developed injury or disease; and

      2.  The employee’s medical records for the injury reported do not include a reference to the injury or disease for which treatment is being sought, or there is no documentation indicating that there was possible exposure to an injury described in paragraph (b), (c) or (d) of subsection 2 of NRS 616A.265,

Ê the injury or disease for which treatment is being sought must not be considered part of the employee’s original claim for compensation unless the physician or chiropractic physician establishes by medical evidence a causal relationship between the injury or disease for which treatment is being sought and the original accident.

      (Added to NRS by 1993, 663; A 1999, 2447; 2001, 1016)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases, 1998–2008 · leading case: Hayes v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 971 P.2d 1257 (Nev. 1998).
Hayes v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 971 P.2d 1257 (Nev. 1998). · cites it 38× “Hayes' right knee problems might be related to her gain in weight and to the aging process, but determined, in accordance with NRS 616C.160, [1] that, because of the "causal relationship" between the industrial injury and Ms.”
Grover C. Dils Med. Ctr. v. Menditto, 112 P.3d 1093 (Nev. 2005). · cites it 2× “265(1) (defining "injury" as "a sudden and tangible happening of a traumatic nature, producing an immediate or prompt result which is established by medical evidence"); see also Swinney, 103 Nev.”
Dickinson v. Am. Med. Response, 186 P.3d 878 (Nev. 2008). “Accordingly, while treating a nonaccepted condition for the noted reasons is not necessarily improper, it nonetheless appears that Dickinson might have reasonably relied on the administrator’s conduct as indicative of acceptance, invoking principles of equity.”
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.