City of Las Vegas v. Burns, 111319 NVCA, 76099-COA

Docket Nº:76099-COA
Opinion Judge:GIBBONS, C.J.
Party Name:CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Appellant, v. GREGG BURNS, Respondent.
Judge Panel:TAO J., BULLA, J.
Case Date:November 13, 2019
Court:Court of Appeals of Nevada
 
FREE EXCERPT

CITY OF LAS VEGAS, Appellant,

v.

GREGG BURNS, Respondent.

No. 76099-COA

Court of Appeals of Nevada

November 13, 2019

UNPUBLISHED OPINION

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

GIBBONS, C.J.

City of Las Vegas appeals from a district court order granting a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Mark B. Bailus, Judge.

In the proceedings below, respondent Gregg Burns, a firefighter for the City of Las Vegas, sought workers' compensation benefits after suffering a heart attack in October 2013. The City denied the claim, concluding that Burns had predisposing conditions that he failed to correct, ! precluding benefits pursuant to NRS 617.457(H).1 After several administrative proceedings and a petition for judicial review before the district court, the appeals officer ultimately filed an amended decision and order, concluding that Burns was provided notice in writing of his predisposing conditions, that he failed to correct those conditions after being ordered to do so, and that he was able to correct the conditions. Accordingly, the appeals officer concluded that a denial of benefits was warranted. Burns filed a petition for judicial review from the amended decision, which the district court granted, concluding that there was insufficient evidence in the record to support the appeals officer's finding that Burns was ordered to correct his predisposing conditions and that he was able to do so. This appeal followed. On appeal, the City challenges the district court's grant of Burns' petition, asserting that substantial evidence supported the appeals officer's determinations. Like the district court, we review an administrative agency's decision to determine whether it was affected by an error of law, or was arbitrary or capricious, and thus, an abuse of discretion. NRS 233B.135(3)(d), (f); State Tax Comm'n v. Am. Home Shield of Nev., Inc., 127 Nev. 382, 385-86, 254 P.3d 601, 603 (2011). We review the agency's factual findings for clear error or an abuse of discretion, and will only overturn those findings if they are not supported by substantial evidence. NRS 233B.135(3)(e), (0; City of N...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP