Nev. Rev. Stat. » NRS: CHAPTER 617 - OCCUPATIONAL DISEASES
Nevada Revised Statutes

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.358 (2026)

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

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 617.358  Compensation prohibited unless preponderance of evidence establishes that disease arose out of and in course of employment; rebuttable presumption if notice of disease is filed after termination of employment; exceptions.

      1.  An employee or the dependents of the employee are not entitled to receive compensation pursuant to the provisions of this chapter unless the employee or the dependents of the employee establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s occupational disease arose out of and in the course of his or her employment.

      2.  If the employee files a notice of an occupational disease pursuant to NRS 617.342 after his or her employment has been terminated for any reason, there is a rebuttable presumption that the occupational disease did not arise out of and in the course of his or her employment.

      3.  The provisions of this section do not apply to any claim filed for an occupational disease described in NRS 617.453, 617.455, 617.457, 617.485 or 617.487.

      (Added to NRS by 1993, 764; A 2009, 546)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 9 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1998–2025 · leading case: City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 19× “440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.358, delineates the requirements for establishing a compensable occupational disease—and NRS 617.”
Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada v. Daniels, 145 P.3d 1024 (Nev. 2006). · cites it 2× “[13] NRS 617.358(1). [14] See NRS 47.240(6) (stating that a statute can create a conclusive presumption).”
Gallagher v. City of Las Vegas, 959 P.2d 519 (Nev. 1998). “DISCUSSION NRS 617.358 requires a person seeking compensation for an occupational disease to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the disease arose out of and in the course of employment.”
Garcia v. Scolari's Food & Drug, 200 P.3d 514 (Nev. 2009). “440 (setting forth the requirements for an occupational disease to be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment).”
Manwill v. Clark Cnty., 162 P.3d 876 (Nev. 2007). “8 NRS 617.358(1). 9 See Gallagher v. City of Las Vegas, 114 Nev.”
City of Las Vegas v. Lawson, 245 P.3d 1175 (Nev. 2010). “The City determined that Lawson did not demonstrate that her breast cancer arose out of and in the course of her employment, as required by NRS 617.358. Lawson appealed to an administrative hearing officer, who affirmed the City’s denial.”
Ccmsi v. Odell, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 5 (Nev. 2025). “3d 1024, 1028 (2006) (quoting NRS 617.358(1)). However, NRS 617.457(1) creates a conclusive presumption for firefighters, police officers, and arson investigators under certain circumstances.”
Demaranville Vs. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.'s, Inc., 2019 NV 35 (Nev. 2019). · cites it 2× “150 (providing that employees may show after terminating employment that an industrial injury claim was causally connected to the employment and thus compensable); NRS 617.358(2) (same for • occupational diseases); NRS 617.”
Haden, Jr. v. a & K Earthmovers (Nev. 2013). “Because substantial evidence supports the appeals officer's conclusion that appellant did not suffer an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of appellant's employment, NRS 617.358(2), the officer did not abuse her discretion in denying appellant's claim for 2…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.358(1) — 5 cases
Employers Ins. Co. of Nevada v. Daniels, 145 P.3d 1024 (Nev. 2006). “[13] NRS 617.358(1). [14] See NRS 47.240(6) (stating that a statute can create a conclusive presumption).”
Garcia v. Scolari's Food & Drug, 200 P.3d 514 (Nev. 2009). “440 (setting forth the requirements for an occupational disease to be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment).”
Manwill v. Clark Cnty., 162 P.3d 876 (Nev. 2007). “8 NRS 617.358(1). 9 See Gallagher v. City of Las Vegas, 114 Nev.”
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.358, delineates the requirements for establishing a compensable occupational disease—and NRS 617.”
Ccmsi v. Odell, 141 Nev. Adv. Op. No. 5 (Nev. 2025). “3d 1024, 1028 (2006) (quoting NRS 617.358(1)). However, NRS 617.457(1) creates a conclusive presumption for firefighters, police officers, and arson investigators under certain circumstances.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.358(2) — 2 cases
Demaranville Vs. Cannon Cochran Mgmt. Serv.'s, Inc., 2019 NV 35 (Nev. 2019). “150 (providing that employees may show after terminating employment that an industrial injury claim was causally connected to the employment and thus compensable); NRS 617.358(2) (same for • occupational diseases); NRS 617.”
Haden, Jr. v. a & K Earthmovers (Nev. 2013). “Because substantial evidence supports the appeals officer's conclusion that appellant did not suffer an occupational disease arising out of and in the course of appellant's employment, NRS 617.358(2), the officer did not abuse her discretion in denying appellant's claim for 2…”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.358(3) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.358, delineates the requirements for establishing a compensable occupational disease—and NRS 617.”
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.