Nyberg v. Nevada Indus. Com'n, 14238
| Decision Date | 26 June 1984 |
| Docket Number | 14239,No. 14238,14238 |
| Citation | 683 P.2d 3,100 Nev. 322 |
| Parties | Greg NYBERG, Appellant, v. NEVADA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Respondent. Alice JACKSON, Appellant, v. NEVADA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION, Respondent. |
| Court | Nevada Supreme Court |
Michael P. Wood, Las Vegas, for appellant.
Michael E. Rowe, Las Vegas, for respondent.
These are consolidated appeals from a single district court order affirming the dismissal of two administrative appeals. In both cases the Department of Administration appeals officers dismissed administrative appeals from rulings by hearing officers of the Nevada Industrial Commission ("NIC," now known as the State Industrial Insurance System). The NIC hearing officers had rejected workmen's compensation claims. The dispositive issue before this court is whether NRCP 6(a) and 6(e) 1 apply to NRS 616.5422(1), 2 thus lengthening the period in which appellants could timely file their administrative appeals. We hold that NRCP 6(a) and 6(e) apply to NRS 616.5422(1), and we therefore reverse and remand this matter for further proceedings before the appeals officers.
In the matter of appellant Nyberg, an NIC hearing officer, on October 5, 1981, affirmed an NIC staff determination rejecting a workmen's compensation claim filed by Nyberg. The decision of the hearing officer, along with an appeal form, was mailed to Nyberg.
Nyberg mailed notice to the appeals officer of his intention to appeal the decision of the hearing officer. This notice was postmarked either November 5 or 7, 1981, and was filed with the appeals officer on Monday, November 9, 1981, 35 days after the filing of the hearing officer's determination. On the NIC's motion, the appeals officer dismissed Nyberg's appeal with prejudice, on the ground that the appeal had not been timely filed. The district court affirmed the dismissal, and this appeal followed.
In the Jackson matter, the record indicates that an NIC hearing officer filed a decision on September 15, 1981, which affirmed a staff determination rejecting a workmen's compensation claim filed by Jackson. The hearing officer's decision was mailed to Jackson, whereupon she sent notice to the appeals officer of her intention to appeal the hearing officer's decision. This notice was filed with the appeals officer on Monday, October 19, 1981, 34 days after the filing of the hearing officer's decision. On the NIC's motion, the appeals officer dismissed as untimely Jackson's request for a hearing.
We note initially that the proper construction of the 30-day appeal period prescribed by NRS 616.5422(1) is a legal, rather than a factual, question. Accordingly, independent appellate review, as opposed to a more deferential standard of review, is appropriate. See McKay Dee Hospital v. Industrial Commission, 598 P.2d 375 (Utah 1979). We note further that the statutory period for filing appeals in workmen's compensation claim matters should be liberally construed. See Industrial Commission v. Adair, 67 Nev. 259, 217 P.2d 348 (1950) (); see also Spencer v. Harrah's Inc., 98 Nev. 99, 641 P.2d 481 (1982).
We now turn to the question of whether NRCP 6(e) applies to the statutory period prescribed by NRS 616.5422(1). Appellants note that the federal counterpart to NRCP 6(e) has been applied to administrative matters. See, e.g., Tavernaris v. Beaver Area School Dist., 454 F.Supp. 355 (W.Pa.1978). Appellants also note that in Rogers v. State, 85 Nev. 361, 455 P.2d 172 (1969), we applied NRCP 6(a) to the filing of a claim that must be filed as a predicate to the commencement of a suit for personal injuries against the state. In response, the NIC cites NRCP 1, which provides that the rules of civil procedure largely govern the procedure in district courts.
We agree, however, with appellants' position. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the language of NRCP 1 does not limit the application of those rules to district court proceedings. In light of the rule of liberal construction, we hold that the three-day grace period allowed by NRCP 6(e) applies to NRS 616.5422(1).
We also agree with appellants' assertion that NRCP 6(a) applies to NRS 616.5422(1). See Rogers v. State, supra.
In light of the above holdings, the record...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. Clark County Dist. Atty.
...to those who have not filed a challenge under NRS 293.182(1) within the strict 5-day time limit. 1.See Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). 2. Rogers v. State, 85 Nev. 361, 364, 455 P.2d 172, 173 3. Id. 4. 76 Nev. 442, 357 P.2d 120 (1960). 5. See NRS 294.29......
-
Moody v. Manny's Auto Repair
...not intended as a statement of the rule in its entirety. The construction of a statute is a question of law. Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). In Welfare Div. v. Washoe Co. Welfare Dep't, 88 Nev. 635, 503 P.2d 457 (1972), we The leading rule for the cons......
-
Nevada Mining Ass'n v. Erdoes
...resulted in a 121-day session because the day the legislature convenes is not counted). 18. See, e.g., Nyberg v. Nevada Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 323-25, 683 P.2d 3, 5 (1984); Rogers v. State, 85 Nev. 361, 364, 455 P.2d 172, 173-74 (1969); Alaska Christian Bible Inst., 772 P.2d at 19. Mc......
-
Bisch v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep't
...first impression in Nevada. This court reviews questions of law, such as statutory interpretation, de novo. Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). In doing so, we apply the plain meaning of the statute and give the words their ordinary meaning where the statu......