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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.435 (2026)

Injuries deemed total and permanent

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 616C.435  Injuries deemed total and permanent.

      1.  In cases of the following specified injuries, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the disability caused thereby shall be deemed total and permanent:

      (a) The total and permanent loss of sight of both eyes.

      (b) The loss by separation of both legs at or above the knee.

      (c) The loss by separation of both arms at or above the elbow.

      (d) An injury to the spine resulting in permanent and complete paralysis of both legs or both arms, or one leg and one arm.

      (e) An injury to the skull resulting in incurable imbecility or insanity.

      (f) The loss by separation of one arm at or above the elbow, and one leg by separation at or above the knee.

      2.  The enumeration in subsection 1 is not exclusive, and in all other cases permanent total disability must be determined by the insurer in accordance with the facts presented.

      [60:168:1947; 1943 NCL § 2680.60]—(NRS A 1981, 1492)—(Substituted in revision for NRS 616.575)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1997–2020 · leading case: State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Bokelman, 946 P.2d 179 (Nev. 1997).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Bokelman, 946 P.2d 179 (Nev. 1997). · cites it 7× “Determining eligibility for PTD status Qualifications for PTD status are determined by NRS 616C.435: 1 Injuries deemed total and permanent.”
Assoc. Risk Mgmt., Inc. Vs. Ibanez, 2020 NV 91 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 2× “51 (1981)); see NRS 616C.435(2). The appeals officer relied on Ibanez's well-documented physical impairment traceable to the 2014 accident and subsequent surgeries, which documentation included written opinions by Ibanez's treating physicians.”
Rosser v. State Ex Rel. State Indus. Ins. Sys., 946 P.2d 185 (Nev. 1997). “5 Recodified as NRS 616C.435. 6 Under the “odd-lot” doctrine, consideration of factors other than physical impairment is necessary to determine whether a non-scheduled injury qualifies the worker for permanent total disability benefits.”
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Perez, 994 P.2d 723 (Nev. 2000). · cites it 7× “Of course, these proofs must satisfy the requirements of NRS 616C.435. If the various permutations are not recognized, the statutory re-opening scheme would not fully account for the possibilities attendant to PTD claims based upon the "odd-lot" doctrine.”
Assoc. Risk Mgmt., Inc. Vs. Ibanez (Nev. 2020). “51 (1981)); see NRS 616C.435(2). Here, the appeals officer based his decision on substantial evidence in the record, including professional medical evaluations.”
Lv Metro Police Dept. v. Burtrand (Nev. 2015). “2d 158, 161 (1995); see also NRS 616C.435(2). Factors to be considered in applying the odd-lot doctrine include the worker's age, experience, training, and education.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.435(1) — 2 cases
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Bokelman, 946 P.2d 179 (Nev. 1997). “Determining eligibility for PTD status Qualifications for PTD status are determined by NRS 616C.435: 1 Injuries deemed total and permanent.”
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Perez, 994 P.2d 723 (Nev. 2000). “Of course, these proofs must satisfy the requirements of NRS 616C.435. If the various permutations are not recognized, the statutory re-opening scheme would not fully account for the possibilities attendant to PTD claims based upon the "odd-lot" doctrine.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 616C.435(2) — 5 cases
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Bokelman, 946 P.2d 179 (Nev. 1997). “Determining eligibility for PTD status Qualifications for PTD status are determined by NRS 616C.435: 1 Injuries deemed total and permanent.”
Assoc. Risk Mgmt., Inc. Vs. Ibanez, 2020 NV 91 (Nev. 2020). “51 (1981)); see NRS 616C.435(2). The appeals officer relied on Ibanez's well-documented physical impairment traceable to the 2014 accident and subsequent surgeries, which documentation included written opinions by Ibanez's treating physicians.”
State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Perez, 994 P.2d 723 (Nev. 2000). “Of course, these proofs must satisfy the requirements of NRS 616C.435. If the various permutations are not recognized, the statutory re-opening scheme would not fully account for the possibilities attendant to PTD claims based upon the "odd-lot" doctrine.”
Assoc. Risk Mgmt., Inc. Vs. Ibanez (Nev. 2020). “51 (1981)); see NRS 616C.435(2). Here, the appeals officer based his decision on substantial evidence in the record, including professional medical evaluations.”
Lv Metro Police Dept. v. Burtrand (Nev. 2015). “2d 158, 161 (1995); see also NRS 616C.435(2). Factors to be considered in applying the odd-lot doctrine include the worker's age, experience, training, and education.”
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.