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

Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440 (2026)

Requirements for occupational disease to be deemed to arise out of and in course of employment; applicability

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NRSleg.state.nv.us (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
NRS 617.440  Requirements for occupational disease to be deemed to arise out of and in course of employment; applicability.

      1.  An occupational disease defined in this chapter shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment if:

      (a) There is a direct causal connection between the conditions under which the work is performed and the occupational disease;

      (b) It can be seen to have followed as a natural incident of the work as a result of the exposure occasioned by the nature of the employment;

      (c) It can be fairly traced to the employment as the proximate cause; and

      (d) It does not come from a hazard to which workers would have been equally exposed outside of the employment.

      2.  The disease must be incidental to the character of the business and not independent of the relation of the employer and employee.

      3.  The disease need not have been foreseen or expected, but after its contraction must appear to have had its origin in a risk connected with the employment, and to have flowed from that source as a natural consequence.

      4.  In cases of disability resulting from radium poisoning or exposure to radioactive properties or substances, or to roentgen rays (X-rays) or ionizing radiation, the poisoning or illness resulting in disability must have been contracted in the State of Nevada.

      5.  The requirements set forth in this section do not apply to claims filed pursuant to NRS 617.453, 617.455, 617.457, 617.485 or 617.487.

      [Part 26:44:1947; A 1949, 365; 1953, 297]—(NRS A 1961, 589; 1963, 874; 1967, 685; 1983, 458; 2007, 3366)

     

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases, 1960–2020 · leading case: Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). · cites it 96× “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). · cites it 43× “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
Seaman v. McKesson Corp., 846 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1993). · cites it 15× “The hearing officer ruled that Seaman’s sarcoidosis had been caused by the aspergillosis and that, therefore, Seaman’s disease was work-related.”
Prescott v. United States, 523 F. Supp. 918 (D. Nev. 1981). · cites it 5× “” NRS 617.440 then provides when such an occupational disease shall be deemed to arise out of and in the course of the employment.”
Morrow v. Asamera Minerals, 929 P.2d 959 (Nev. 1996). · cites it 9× “As a result, SIIS concluded that Morrow’s ten-year history of back ailments, the failure to pinpoint any specific traumatic event, and the ubiquitous presence of back problems among the general population, made it medically unreasonable to categorize Morrow’s condition as an…”
Desert Inn Casino & Hotel v. Moran, 792 P.2d 400 (Nev. 1990). · cites it 3× “NRS 617.440 sets forth the requirements for an occupational disease to be deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment.”
McGrath v. State Dep't of Pub. Saf., 159 P.3d 239 (Nev. 2007). “, NRS 617.440. 12 Webster’s, supra note 7, at 985.”
Garcia v. Scolari's Food & Drug, 200 P.3d 514 (Nev. 2009). “358(1) (providing that, to receive occupational disease benefits, an employee must show by a preponderance of the evidence that her disease arose out of and in the course of her employment); NRS 617.440 (setting forth the requirements for an occupational disease to be deemed to…”
Prescott v. United States, 858 F. Supp. 1461 (D. Nev. 1994). · cites it 2× “Nev. Rev.Stat. § 617.440. Upon making that threshold showing, a defendant is then required to rebut the statutory presumption of negligence provided by Nev.”
City of Las Vegas v. Lawson, 245 P.3d 1175 (Nev. 2010). “4 “Reasonably associated” differs from the “causal connection” language found in NRS 617.440 regarding when occupational diseases other than those affecting firefighters are deemed to arise out of and in the course of employment.”
Smith v. Garside, 355 P.2d 849 (Nev. 1960). · cites it 2× “020; or (2) that her condition was the result of an occupational disease as defined in NRS 617.440; (3) that appellant is bound by her election of remedy in filing a claim with and accepting benefits from the Nevada Industrial Commission; and (4) that appellant had failed to…”
City of Henderson Vs. Spangler, 2020 NV 25 (Nev. 2020). · cites it 16× “175(1) is supported by substantial evidence, as Spangler did not establish an "injury by accident"; and (3) the appeals officer's decision under NRS 617.440 is supported by substantial evidence because Spangler's hearing loss is not a compensable occupational disease.”
Show all 16 citing cases →
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(1) — 2 cases
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(1)(a) — 2 cases
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(1)(b) — 2 cases
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(1)(c) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(1)(d) — 2 cases
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(2) — 2 cases
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(3) — 2 cases
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Williams, 541 P.2d 905 (Nev. 1975).
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(5) — 1 case
City of Las Vegas v. Evans, 301 P.3d 844 (Nev. 2013). “The salient issue that we address is the relationship between NRS 617.440—a statute that, in conjunction with NRS 617.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(l)(a) — 2 cases
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
Seaman v. McKesson Corp., 846 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1993). “The hearing officer ruled that Seaman’s sarcoidosis had been caused by the aspergillosis and that, therefore, Seaman’s disease was work-related.”
— Nev. Rev. Stat. § 617.440(l)(b) — 2 cases
Palmer v. Del Webb's High Sierra, 838 P.2d 435 (Nev. 1992). “The definitional statute, NRS 617.440, requires an occupational disease to be an incident of the employment and not merely an accidental consequence that is not related to the nature of the employment.”
Seaman v. McKesson Corp., 846 P.2d 280 (Nev. 1993). “The hearing officer ruled that Seaman’s sarcoidosis had been caused by the aspergillosis and that, therefore, Seaman’s disease was work-related.”
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.