Reeves v. Bally's Grand Hotel & Casino

• Decision Date: 12 April 2012
• Docket Number: No. 57823.,57823.
• Citation: 381 P.3d 655 (Table)
• Court: Nevada Supreme Court
• Parties: Susan REEVES, Appellant, v. BALLY'S GRAND HOTEL & CASINO, Respondent.

381 P.3d 655 (Table)

Susan REEVES, Appellant,
v.
BALLY'S GRAND HOTEL & CASINO, Respondent.

No. 57823.

Supreme Court of Nevada.

April 12, 2012.

Susan Reeves

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

This is a proper person appeal from a district court order denying a petition for judicial review in a workers' compensation matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Jerry A. Wiese, Judge.

Appellant sustained an industrial injury in September 1988, and in September 2006, respondent closed appellant's workers' compensation claim. While this decision was in the administrative appeals process, appellant requested that the scope of her claim be expanded to include injuries from falls that she attributed to dizziness resulting from her industrial injury. Respondent denied the request to expand the scope of her claim, and the hearing officer affirmed the denial. The hearing officer also subsequently affirmed the claim closure. Appellant filed appeals from both determinations, which were consolidated before the appeals officer. In December 2009, the appeals officer affirmed both the claim closure and the denial of claim expansion, finding that appellant failed to establish that she was entitled to further medical treatment or that her new injuries were caused by her industrial injury. Appellant filed a petition for judicial review, which the district court denied.¹ This appeal followed.

This court reviews an appeals officer's decision in a workers' compensation matter for clear error or abuse of discretion. Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087–88 (2008). On issues of fact, the appeals officer's decision will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence, which is “evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequately supporting a conclusion.” Id. at 557 & n.4, 188 P.3d at 1087 & n.4. An appeals officer's determination on pure issues of law is reviewed de novo. Roberts v. SIIS, 114 Nev. 364, 367, 956 P.2d 790, 792 (1998). When the conclusions of law are closely related to the agency's view of the facts, however, they are entitled to deference and will also not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. Campbell v. State, Dep't of Taxation, 109 Nev. 512, 516, 853 P.2d 717, 719 (1993).

On appeal, appellant argues that the appeals officer erred by finding that the evidence supported the closure of her claim.² In 2003, the appeals officer ordered that appellant's claim remain open for benefits and...