NRS
616C.390 Reopening claim: General requirements and procedure;
limitations; applicability. Except
as otherwise provided in
NRS 616C.392:
1. If an application to reopen a claim to
increase or rearrange compensation is made in writing more than 1 year after
the date on which the claim was closed, the insurer shall reopen the claim if:
(a) A change of circumstances warrants an
increase or rearrangement of compensation during the life of the claimant;
(b) The primary cause of the change of
circumstances is the injury for which the claim was originally made; and
(c) The application is accompanied by the
certificate of a physician or a chiropractic physician showing a change of
circumstances which would warrant an increase or rearrangement of compensation.
2. After a claim has been closed, the
insurer, upon receiving an application and for good cause shown, may authorize
the reopening of the claim for medical investigation only. The application must
be accompanied by a written request for treatment from the physician or
chiropractic physician treating the claimant, certifying that the treatment is
indicated by a change in circumstances and is related to the industrial injury
sustained by the claimant.
3. If a claimant applies for a claim to be
reopened pursuant to subsection 1 or 2 and a final determination denying the
reopening is issued, the claimant shall not reapply to reopen the claim until
at least 1 year after the date on which the final determination is issued.
4. Except as otherwise provided in
subsection 5, if an application to reopen a claim is made in writing within 1
year after the date on which the claim was closed, the insurer shall reopen the
claim only if:
(a) The application is supported by medical
evidence demonstrating an objective change in the medical condition of the
claimant; and
(b) There is clear and convincing evidence that
the primary cause of the change of circumstances is the injury for which the
claim was originally made.
5. An application to reopen a claim must
be made in writing within 1 year after the date on which the claim was closed
if:
(a) The claimant did not meet the minimum
duration of incapacity as set forth in NRS
616C.400 as a result of the injury; and
(b) The claimant did not receive benefits for a
permanent partial disability.
Ê If an
application to reopen a claim to increase or rearrange compensation is made
pursuant to this subsection, the insurer shall reopen the claim if the
requirements set forth in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection 1 are met.
6. If an employee’s claim is reopened
pursuant to this section, the employee is not entitled to vocational
rehabilitation services or benefits for a temporary total disability if, before
the claim was reopened, the employee:
(a) Retired; or
(b) Otherwise voluntarily removed himself or
herself from the workforce,
Ê for reasons
unrelated to the injury for which the claim was originally made.
7. One year after the date on which the
claim was closed, an insurer may dispose of the file of a claim authorized to
be reopened pursuant to subsection 5, unless an application to reopen the claim
has been filed pursuant to that subsection.
8. An increase or rearrangement of
compensation is not effective before an application for reopening a claim is
made unless good cause is shown. The insurer shall, upon good cause shown,
allow the cost of emergency treatment the necessity for which has been certified
by a physician or a chiropractic physician.
9. A claim that closes pursuant to
subsection 2 of NRS 616C.235 and is
not appealed or is unsuccessfully appealed pursuant to the provisions of NRS 616C.315 to 616C.385, inclusive, may not be reopened
pursuant to this section.
10. The provisions of this section apply
to any claim for which an application to reopen the claim or to increase or
rearrange compensation is made pursuant to this section, regardless of the date
of the injury or accident to the claimant. If a claim is reopened pursuant to
this section, the amount of any compensation or benefits provided must be
determined in accordance with the provisions of NRS 616C.425.
11. As used in this section:
(a) “Governmental program” means any program or
plan under which a person receives payments from a public form of retirement.
Such payments from a public form of retirement include, without limitation:
(1) Social security received as a result
of the Social Security Act, as defined in NRS
287.120;
(2) Payments from the Public Employees’
Retirement System, as established by NRS
286.110;
(3) Payments from the Retirees’ Fund, as
defined in NRS 287.04064;
(4) A disability retirement allowance, as
defined in NRS 1A.040 and 286.031;
(5) A retirement allowance, as defined in NRS 218C.080; and
(6) A service retirement allowance, as
defined in NRS 1A.080 and 286.080.
(b) “Retired” means a person who, on the date he
or she filed for reopening a claim pursuant to this section:
(1) Is not employed or earning wages; and
(2) Receives benefits or payments for
retirement from a:
(I) Pension or retirement plan;
(II) Governmental program; or
(III) Plan authorized by 26 U.S.C. §
401(a), 401(k), 403(b), 457 or 3121.
(c) “Wages” means any remuneration paid by an
employer to an employee for the personal services of the employee, including,
without limitation:
(1) Commissions and bonuses; and
(2) Remuneration payable in any medium
other than cash.
[56:168:1947; 1943 NCL § 2680.56] + [57:168:1947;
1943 NCL § 2680.57]—(NRS A 1971,
770; 1981,
1198, 1831;
1983,
285, 1294;
1985,
1547; 1993,
741, 2441;
1995,
2152; 1999,
1787; 2005,
1491; 2015,
1140; 2017,
1163; 2025,
3315)
Notes of Decisions
Williams v. United Parcel Servs., 302 P.3d 1144 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 34× “Also, the notice informed Williams of the right to reopen his claim under NRS 616C.390. Williams did not exercise the option to appeal the notice’s determination.”
Elizondo v. Hood Mach., Inc., 312 P.3d 479 (Nev. 2013).
· cites it 9× “125, and whether the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion apply to require dismissal of Carlos Elizondo’s fourth request to reopen an industrial injury claim under NRS 616C.390. We conclude that the appeals officer’s order was procedurally deficient and that the appeals…”
City of Henderson v. Wolfgram, 2021 NV 79 (Nev. 2021).
· cites it 18× “NRS 616C.390 addresses the reopening of closed workers' compensation claims.”
Day v. Washoe Cnty. Sch. Dist., 116 P.3d 68 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 10× “: In this appeal, we consider the scope of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act’s provision for claim reopening, NRS 616C.390. This statute allows the reopening of closed workers’ compensation claims when the original injury is the primary cause of a worsening of the industrial…”
Grover C. Dils Med. Ctr. v. Menditto, 112 P.3d 1093 (Nev. 2005).
· cites it 4× “When a subsequent incident results in an injury or accident, the timing requirements (and any exceptions) appropriately apply as if the subsequent injury were a new claim.”
Langman v. Nevada Administrators, Inc., 955 P.2d 188 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 7× “390) is determined by the date of the original industrial injury or by the date of the request to reopen the claim Appellant contends that the district court erred in affirming the appeals officer's *191 decision to deny the reopening of appellant's claim because the appeals…”
Las Vegas Hous. Auth. v. Root, 8 P.3d 143 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 4× “An administrative appeals officer held the first employer liable by requiring reopening of the employee’s original claim under NRS 616C.390. We conclude the appeals officer should have held the subsequent employer liable under the last injurious exposure rule, which places hill…”
Amtrust N. Am., Inc. v. Vasquez, Jr., 555 P.3d 1164 (Nev. 2024).
· cites it 2× “After receiving the settlement, the employee requested to reopen his workers' compensation claim under NRS 616C.390, but the insurer denied the request, claiming an offset based on the third-party settlement.”
Hayes v. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 971 P.2d 1257 (Nev. 1998).
· cites it 2× “A parallel, but different, procedure "to reopen a claim" is provided for in NRS 616C.390. Ms. Hayes did not seek to "reopen" a claim; rather, she sought only "treatment from a physician" for troubles suffered to her right knee which were causally related to an industrial injury…”
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Perez, 994 P.2d 723 (Nev. 2000).
· cites it 18× “By so accepting he waives all of his rights regarding the claim, including the right to appeal from the closure of the case or the percentage of his disability, except: (a) His right to reopen his claim according to the provisions of NRS 616C.390; and (b) Any counseling,…”
Poremba Vs. So. Nevada Paving, 2017 NV 2 (Nev. 2017).
· cites it 18× “First, NRS 616C.390 does not require exhaustion or reimbursement as a condition precedent to reopening a workers' compensation claim.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(1) — 13 cases
Williams v. United Parcel Servs., 302 P.3d 1144 (Nev. 2013).
“Also, the notice informed Williams of the right to reopen his claim under NRS 616C.390. Williams did not exercise the option to appeal the notice’s determination.”
Elizondo v. Hood Mach., Inc., 312 P.3d 479 (Nev. 2013).
“125, and whether the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion apply to require dismissal of Carlos Elizondo’s fourth request to reopen an industrial injury claim under NRS 616C.390. We conclude that the appeals officer’s order was procedurally deficient and that the appeals…”
Day v. Washoe Cnty. Sch. Dist., 116 P.3d 68 (Nev. 2005).
“: In this appeal, we consider the scope of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act’s provision for claim reopening, NRS 616C.390. This statute allows the reopening of closed workers’ compensation claims when the original injury is the primary cause of a worsening of the industrial…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(1)(a) — 2 cases
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(1)(b) — 1 case
Day v. Washoe Cnty. Sch. Dist., 116 P.3d 68 (Nev. 2005).
“: In this appeal, we consider the scope of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act’s provision for claim reopening, NRS 616C.390. This statute allows the reopening of closed workers’ compensation claims when the original injury is the primary cause of a worsening of the industrial…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(10) — 1 case
Langman v. Nevada Administrators, Inc., 955 P.2d 188 (Nev. 1998).
“390) is determined by the date of the original industrial injury or by the date of the request to reopen the claim Appellant contends that the district court erred in affirming the appeals officer's *191 decision to deny the reopening of appellant's claim because the appeals…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(11)(c)(1) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(2) — 1 case
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Perez, 994 P.2d 723 (Nev. 2000).
“By so accepting he waives all of his rights regarding the claim, including the right to appeal from the closure of the case or the percentage of his disability, except: (a) His right to reopen his claim according to the provisions of NRS 616C.390; and (b) Any counseling,…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(4) — 3 cases
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Perez, 994 P.2d 723 (Nev. 2000).
“By so accepting he waives all of his rights regarding the claim, including the right to appeal from the closure of the case or the percentage of his disability, except: (a) His right to reopen his claim according to the provisions of NRS 616C.390; and (b) Any counseling,…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(5) — 5 cases
Williams v. United Parcel Servs., 302 P.3d 1144 (Nev. 2013).
“Also, the notice informed Williams of the right to reopen his claim under NRS 616C.390. Williams did not exercise the option to appeal the notice’s determination.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(5)(a) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(6) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(8) — 1 case
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.390(l)(b) — 1 case
Day v. Washoe Cnty. Sch. Dist., 116 P.3d 68 (Nev. 2005).
“: In this appeal, we consider the scope of the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act’s provision for claim reopening, NRS 616C.390. This statute allows the reopening of closed workers’ compensation claims when the original injury is the primary cause of a worsening of the industrial…”
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.