Union Plaza Hotel v. Jackson, 16396

Decision Date11 December 1985
Docket NumberNo. 16396,16396
PartiesUNION PLAZA HOTEL, Appellant, v. Arista JACKSON, Respondent.
CourtNevada Supreme Court
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Union Plaza Hotel, a self-insured employer, appeals from an order of the district court affirming the decision of an appeals officer. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse.

Respondent Arista Jackson injured her back while working for appellant Union Plaza Hotel on March 14, 1983. During the course of her medical treatment, she was seen by several doctors and ultimately referred to the Jean Hanna Clark Rehabilitation Center for physical therapy.

On November 21, 1983, respondent was examined for permanent partial disability by a rating physician. In his report dated December 8, 1983, the rating physician concluded that although respondent had demonstrated a loss of range of motion, she had not suffered a permanent partial disability. The rating physician recommended a zero percent award and closure of respondent's claim. Union Plaza ratified this determination.

Respondent appealed to a hearing officer who affirmed the closure of her claim with no award. Respondent then appealed to an appeals officer. The appeals officer determined that the rating undertaken by the physician was not dispositive of the issue of permanent partial disability, and ordered that Union Plaza refer respondent to either one of two named physicians for a second rating evaluation. Union Plaza subsequently petitioned the district court for judicial review, and the district court affirmed the decision of the appeals officer. Union Plaza has appealed, arguing that the appeals officer exceeded his jurisdiction by ordering that a second rating evaluation be conducted by either of two physicians named by the appeals officer. We agree.

The power of an appeals officer to order another medical evaluation is limited by NRS 616.540. NRS 616.540 provides in relevant part:

1. If on a claim for compensation by an injured employee any medical question or the extent of disability of an injured employee is in controversy, an appeals officer or the insurer may refer the case to the medical board which serves the appropriate medical board district. (Emphasis added.)

When the situation arises, as it did in the present case, where the appeals officer disagrees with and rejects the rating physician's conclusions, and the appeals officer determines that the claimant should be reevaluated, the only alternative available to the appeals officer is set forth in NRS 616.540.

Respondent points out that NRS 616.5416(3) provides that a hearing officer has the power to refer a claimant to a physician chosen by the hearing officer in order to resolve a medical question. 1 Respondent then...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Reinkemeyer v. Safeco Ins. Co., 34507.
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • January 30, 2001
    ...empowered to go beyond the face of [the] statute to lend it a construction contrary to its clear meaning." Union Plaza Hotel v. Jackson, 101 Nev. 733, 736, 709 P.2d 1020, 1022 (1985); see also Thompson v. District Court, 100 Nev. 352, 354, 683 P.2d 17, 19 (1984) ("If a statute is clear on i......
  • Crowley v. Duffrin, 23489
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • June 22, 1993
    ...not empowered to go beyond the face of a statute to lend it a construction contrary to its clear meaning." Union Plaza Hotel v. Jackson, 101 Nev. 733, 736, 709 P.2d 1020, 1022 (1985). Contrary to the district court's ruling and respondent's assertions, an attorney is not obligated to provid......
  • Barrios-Lomeli v. State, BARRIOS-LOMEL
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • August 28, 1997
    ...not empowered to go beyond the face of a statute to lend it a construction contrary to its clear meaning." Union Plaza Hotel v. Jackson, 101 Nev. 733, 736, 709 P.2d 1020, 1022 (1985). Moreover, "if a statute clearly and unambiguously specifies the legislature's intended result, such result ......
  • Taylor v. Thunder
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • November 22, 2000
    ...this argument lacks merit. See Crowley v. Duffrin, 109 Nev. 597, 603, 855 P.2d 536, 540 (1993) (quoting Union Plaza Hotel v. Jackson, 101 Nev. 733, 736, 709 P.2d 1020, 1022 (1985)) (stating that this court is "`not empowered to go beyond the face of a statute to lend it a construction contr......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT