incapacitated for work to be deemed permanently and totally disabled if 

they are "so handicapped that they will not be regularly employed in any 

well-known branch of the labor market." Ranieri v. Catholic Cmty. Servs., 

111 Nev. 1057, 1062, 901 P.2d 158, 161 (1995); see also NRS 616C.435(2). 

Factors to be considered in applying the odd-lot doctrine include the 

worker's age, experience, training, and education. Ranieri, 111 Nev. at 

1062, 901 P.2d at 161. 

Here, the appeals officer considered the evidence presented by 

the parties in light of those factors, including evidence that Burtrand's 

transferable skills could not be used in the workplace due to her inability 

to sit, stand, and walk without pain. The appeals officer found Burtrand's 

testimony credible and also specifically relied on three medical reports: 

that of Dr. Wendell Burris, Burtrand's personal physician; that of Dr. 

Robin Genereaux, a vocational rehabilitation counselor; and that of Dr. 

Mark Rosin, who performed an independent medical examination on 

Burtrand. Each of these reports supports the appeals officer's findings. 

See Westin Hotel v. Indus. Comm'n of Ill., 865 N.E.2d 342, 357-58 (Ill App. 

Ct. 2007) (recognizing that evidence from both a rehabilitation services 

provider or a vocational counselor and medical doctors support a PTD 

finding under the odd-lot doctrine). Further, after the district court 

remanded for the appeals officer to clarify whether Burtrand was 

precluded from working in the competitive labor market at large or merely 

in her former position at Metro, the appeals officer expressly found that, 

based on the reports and Burtrand's physical limitations, she could not 

return to "working in the competitive labor market at large," warranting a 

PTD finding under the odd-lot doctrine. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A 41ffejir 
While the record contains conflicting evidence regarding 

appellant's ability to work, this court will not reweigh the evidence or 

replace the appeals officer's judgment as between two reasonable but 

conflicting views. See NRS 233B.135; Nellis Motors v. State, Dep't of 

Motor Vehicles, 124 Nev. 1263, 1269-70, 197 P.3d 1061, 1066 (2008) 

(explaining that this court will not reweigh the evidence, reassess witness 

credibility, or substituteS our judgment for that of the appeals officer on 

questions of fact). The appeals officer applied the correct legal standard 

and substantial evidence supports the appeals officer's determination that 

Burtrand qualifies for PTD benefits under the odd-lot doctrine. See 

Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 & n.4, 188 P.3d 1084, 

1087 & n.4 (2008) (noting that the appeals officer's decision will not be 

disturbed if supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence that a 

reasonable person could accept as adequately supporting a conclusion). 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 

cc: Hon. Michael Villani, District Judge 

Richard A. Harris, Settlement Judge 

Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas 

Nevada Attorney for Injured Workers/Las Vegas 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) 1947A e