NRS
616C.230 Grounds for denial, reduction or suspension of compensation;
evidence of and examination for use of alcohol or controlled substance.
1. Compensation is not payable pursuant to
the provisions of chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, or chapter 617 of NRS for an injury:
(a) Caused by the employee’s willful intention to
injure himself or herself.
(b) Caused by the employee’s willful intention to
injure another.
(c) That occurred while the employee was in a
state of intoxication, unless the employee can prove by clear and convincing
evidence that his or her state of intoxication was not the proximate cause of
the injury. For the purposes of this paragraph, an employee is in a state of
intoxication if the level of alcohol in the bloodstream of the employee meets
or exceeds the limits set forth in subsection 1 of NRS 484C.110.
(d) That occurred while the employee was under
the influence of a controlled or prohibited substance, unless the employee can
prove by clear and convincing evidence that his or her being under the
influence of a controlled or prohibited substance was not the proximate cause
of the injury. For the purposes of this paragraph, an employee is under the
influence of a controlled or prohibited substance if the employee had an amount
of a controlled or prohibited substance for which the employee did not have a
current and lawful prescription issued in the employee’s name in his or her
system at the time of his or her injury that was equal to or greater than:
Urine Blood
Nanograms
per Nanograms per
Prohibited substance milliliter milliliter
(1) Amphetamine 500 100
(2) Cocaine 150 50
(3) Cocaine metabolite 150 50
(4) Heroin 2,000 50
(5) Heroin metabolite:
(I) Morphine 2,000 50
(II) 6-monoacetyl morphine 10 10
(6) Lysergic acid diethylamide 25 10
(7) Methamphetamine 500 100
(8) Phencyclidine 25 10
(9) Marijuana
(delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) 2
2. For the purposes of paragraphs (c) and
(d) of subsection 1:
(a) The affidavit or declaration of an expert or
other person described in NRS 50.310, 50.315 or 50.320
is admissible to prove the existence of an impermissible quantity of alcohol or
the existence, quantity or identity of an impermissible controlled or
prohibited substance in an employee’s system. If the affidavit or declaration
is to be so used, it must be submitted in the manner prescribed in NRS 616C.355.
(b) When an examination requested or ordered
includes testing for the use of alcohol or a controlled or prohibited
substance, the laboratory that conducts the testing must be licensed pursuant
to the provisions of chapter 652 of NRS.
(c) The results of any testing for the use of
alcohol or a controlled or prohibited substance, irrespective of the purpose
for performing the test, must be made available to an insurer or employer upon
request, to the extent that doing so does not conflict with federal law.
3. No compensation is payable for the
death, disability or treatment of an employee if the employee’s death is caused
by, or insofar as the employee’s disability is aggravated, caused or continued
by, an unreasonable refusal or neglect to submit to or to follow any competent
and reasonable surgical treatment or medical aid.
4. If any employee persists in an
unsanitary or injurious practice that imperils or retards his or her recovery,
or refuses to submit to such medical or surgical treatment as is necessary to
promote his or her recovery, the employee’s compensation may be reduced or
suspended.
5. An injured employee’s compensation,
other than accident benefits, must be suspended if:
(a) A physician or chiropractic physician
determines that the employee is unable to undergo treatment, testing or
examination for the industrial injury solely because of a condition or injury
that did not arise out of and in the course of employment; and
(b) It is within the ability of the employee to
correct the nonindustrial condition or injury.
Ê The
compensation must be suspended until the injured employee is able to resume
treatment, testing or examination for the industrial injury. The insurer may
elect to pay for the treatment of the nonindustrial condition or injury.
6. As used in this section, “prohibited
substance” means any of the following substances if the person who uses the
substance has not been issued a valid prescription to use the substance and the
substance is classified in schedule I or II pursuant to NRS 453.166 or 453.176 when it is used:
(a) Amphetamine.
(b) Cocaine.
(c) Cocaine metabolite.
(d) Heroin.
(e) Heroin metabolite:
(1) Morphine.
(2) 6-monoacetyl morphine.
(f) Lysergic acid diethylamide.
(g) Methamphetamine.
(h) Phencyclidine.
(i) Marijuana (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol).
[70:168:1947; 1943 NCL § 2680.70] + [71:168:1947;
1943 NCL § 2680.71] + [72:168:1947; 1943 NCL § 2680.72]—(NRS A 1979,
1057; 1981,
1198; 1991,
2421; 1993,
745; 1995,
2153; 1997,
1394, 1421;
1999,
224, 442,
2215;
2001,
3072; 2009,
1280; 2015,
1135; 2017,
324; 2021,
1465)
Notes of Decisions
Constr. Indus. Workers' Comp. Grp. Ex Rel. Mojave Elec. v. Chalue, 74 P.3d 595 (Nev. 2003).
· cites it 11× “OPINION Per Curiam: This is an appeal from a district court order upholding the decision of an appeals officer that respondent John Chalue provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that marijuana was a proximate cause of his work-related injuries pursuant to NRS…”
Vredenburg Ex Rel. Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 188 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2008).
· cites it 7× “While workers’ compensation benefits are generally available for accidental employee deaths, under NRS 616C.230(1), Nevada’s *555 willful self-injury exclusion, the employee’s surviving family members are precluded from recovering benefits if the employee’s death results from a…”
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Engel, 971 P.2d 793 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 12× “575 notwithstanding, Engel contends that NRS 616C.230(4) governs this dispute: An injured employee's compensation, other than accident benefits, must be suspended if: (a) A physician or chiropractor determines that the employee is unable to undergo treatment, testing or…”
Desert Valley Constr. v. Hurley, 96 P.3d 739 (Nev. 2004).
· cites it 12× “Aside from seeking an interpretation of NRS 616C.230, which we provided in Chalue, EICN asserts that substantial evidence does not support the appeals officer’s proximate cause findings, and that Hurley should not have been permitted to rebut the presumption against compensation…”
Browning v. Young Elec. Sign Co., 936 P.2d 322 (Nev. 1997).
· cites it 3× “The district judge reversed the appeals officer’s decision based on the fact that the appeals officer had concluded that Browning had been intoxicated at the time of the injury and had failed to rebut the presumption that alcohol was the proximate cause of his injury.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.230(1) — 2 cases
Vredenburg Ex Rel. Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 188 P.3d 1084 (Nev. 2008).
“While workers’ compensation benefits are generally available for accidental employee deaths, under NRS 616C.230(1), Nevada’s *555 willful self-injury exclusion, the employee’s surviving family members are precluded from recovering benefits if the employee’s death results from a…”
Desert Valley Constr. v. Hurley, 96 P.3d 739 (Nev. 2004).
“Aside from seeking an interpretation of NRS 616C.230, which we provided in Chalue, EICN asserts that substantial evidence does not support the appeals officer’s proximate cause findings, and that Hurley should not have been permitted to rebut the presumption against compensation…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.230(1)(d) — 2 cases
Constr. Indus. Workers' Comp. Grp. Ex Rel. Mojave Elec. v. Chalue, 74 P.3d 595 (Nev. 2003).
“OPINION Per Curiam: This is an appeal from a district court order upholding the decision of an appeals officer that respondent John Chalue provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that marijuana was a proximate cause of his work-related injuries pursuant to NRS…”
Desert Valley Constr. v. Hurley, 96 P.3d 739 (Nev. 2004).
“Aside from seeking an interpretation of NRS 616C.230, which we provided in Chalue, EICN asserts that substantial evidence does not support the appeals officer’s proximate cause findings, and that Hurley should not have been permitted to rebut the presumption against compensation…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.230(4) — 1 case
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Engel, 971 P.2d 793 (Nev. 1998).
“575 notwithstanding, Engel contends that NRS 616C.230(4) governs this dispute: An injured employee's compensation, other than accident benefits, must be suspended if: (a) A physician or chiropractor determines that the employee is unable to undergo treatment, testing or…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.230(4)(a) — 1 case
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Engel, 971 P.2d 793 (Nev. 1998).
“575 notwithstanding, Engel contends that NRS 616C.230(4) governs this dispute: An injured employee's compensation, other than accident benefits, must be suspended if: (a) A physician or chiropractor determines that the employee is unable to undergo treatment, testing or…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.230(l)(d) — 2 cases
Constr. Indus. Workers' Comp. Grp. Ex Rel. Mojave Elec. v. Chalue, 74 P.3d 595 (Nev. 2003).
“OPINION Per Curiam: This is an appeal from a district court order upholding the decision of an appeals officer that respondent John Chalue provided sufficient evidence to rebut the presumption that marijuana was a proximate cause of his work-related injuries pursuant to NRS…”
Desert Valley Constr. v. Hurley, 96 P.3d 739 (Nev. 2004).
“Aside from seeking an interpretation of NRS 616C.230, which we provided in Chalue, EICN asserts that substantial evidence does not support the appeals officer’s proximate cause findings, and that Hurley should not have been permitted to rebut the presumption against compensation…”
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.