Case Name: STATE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM, an Agency of THE STATE OF NEVADA, Appellant, v. UNITED EXPOSITION SERVICES CO., Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Nevada
Jurisdiction: Nevada
Decision Date: 1993-02-04
Citations: 109 Nev. 28
Docket Number: No. 22834
Parties: STATE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM, an Agency of THE STATE OF NEVADA, Appellant, v. UNITED EXPOSITION SERVICES CO., Respondent.
Judges: Rose, C. J., and Young, J., concur.
Reporter: Nevada Reports
Volume: 109
Pages: 28–36

Head Matter:
STATE INDUSTRIAL INSURANCE SYSTEM, an Agency of THE STATE OF NEVADA, Appellant, v. UNITED EXPOSITION SERVICES CO., Respondent.
No. 22834
February 4, 1993
846 P.2d 294
R. Scott Young, General Counsel, William A. Zeigler, Associate General Counsel, State Industrial Insurance System, Carson City, for Appellant.
J. Michael McGroarty, Las Vegas, for Respondent.
The Honorable Miriam Shearing, Justice, did not participate in the decision of this matter.

Opinion:
OPINION
By the Court,
Springer, J.:
In an administrative review, the trial court held that when an employer fails to follow the appeal procedures provided in NRS 616.5412, the employer may still seek a later review of an employee's permanent partial disability award by recourse to NRS 616.392, which provides for an appeal from a "written decision of an employee of the system relating to employers' account." This was error because NRS 616.5412 provides the exclusive procedure for the appeal of disability adjudications and because NRS 616.392 is clearly inapplicable to this case.
The dissenting justice is appropriately concerned about the manner in which the State Industrial Insurance System ("SIIS") handled this claim, but this concern should not distract the court from its clear duty to decide the narrow issue presented by this appeal. The issue before us is whether an employer has administrative appeal rights in a contested worker disability case that go beyond the procedures provided in NRS 616.5412. The answer is, "no."
The legislature has set up the administrative appeals process articulated in NRS 616.5412 for claims relating to SIIS decisions granting or denying benefits to an injured worker. NRS 616.5412 provides that any person who is "aggrieved by . . . [a] determination of an insurer" may appeal from the determination by "filing a request for a hearing before a hearing officer." Any such request must be filed within sixty days after the written determination was mailed. An employer is an "aggrieved person" under NRS 616.5412, and this provision provides an exclusive avenue of appeal from SIIS decisions granting or denying benefits. If employers had the right to bypass the NRS 616.5412 hearing process and file an additional or alternative appeal with the SIIS Manager, this would seriously complicate and interfere with the unitary appeals system provided for in the statute for reviewing disability awards and could place an intolerable burden on the SIIS Manager.
In the present case, the facts are not in dispute, and we are presented with only the one legal issue, an issue which relates to the interpretation of statutory provisions. Questions of law are reviewed de novo. See, e.g., Arizona Bd. of Regents v. Phoenix Newspapers, 806 P.2d 348 (Ariz. 1991); M.S. v. People, 812 P.2d 632 (Colo. 1991); Crocker Nat'l Bank v. San Francisco, 782 P.2d 278 (Cal. 1989). "[A] reviewing court may undertake independent review of the administrative construction of a statute." American Int'l Vacations v. MacBride, 99 Nev. 324, 326, 661 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1983). We have thus undertaken an independent review of the mentioned statutory provisions and conclude that an employer has no appeal rights in the case of a disability award other than those provided by NRS 616.5412.
In the present case, United failed to appeal under NRS 616.5412 from a SIIS decision to pay a claimant a permanent partial disability award and to appeal from a second SIIS decision to provide the claimant with rehabilitation benefits, even though SIIS notified United that it could appeal from both of these decisions. Instead, United waited more than a year and then requested a hearing with the SIIS Manager pursuant to NRS 616.392. NRS 616.392(1) authorizes the SIIS Manager to hear certain types of complaints relating to an employer's account and states the following:
1. Any party aggrieved by a letter issued pursuant to NRS 616.288 or a written decision of an employee of the system relating to employers' accounts, including but not limited to matters concerning audits and the classification of risks, may appeal from the letter or decision'by filing a notice of appeal with the manager within 30 days after the date of the letter or decision.
The only conceivable avenue for administrative review by United under NRS 616.288 would on appeal be from "a written decision of an employee of the system relating to employers' accounts." We cannot identify in this record any written decision by an SIIS employee relating to United's accounts. United did receive a copy of a letter dated January 17, 1989, in which the claimant was offered an award and advised the claimant that the employer "had the right to appeal this decision." It is hard to give much credence to the argument that this "decision" is one "relating to [United's] accounts." Although it could be argued that an award of benefits to an injured employee might increase the premiums paid by an employer to SIIS, SIIS's decisions regarding benefits awards do not "relate" to an employer's "accounts" within the meaning of NRS 616.392(1); and NRS 616.392(1) does not convey authority to the SIIS Manager to review such awards.
As SIIS benefits awards do not fall within the ambit of NRS 616.392(1), we conclude that the SIIS Manager lacked authority to hear United's appeal. We therefore reverse the district court judgment. United's SIIS account shall reflect SIIS's benefit awards to Quaney.
Rose, C. J., and Young, J., concur.
NRS 616.5412, under the headnote "appeals," provides that "a person who is aggrieved" may request a hearing before a hearing officer so as to appeal from a "determination of an insurer." This statute provides the exclusive recourse for aggrieved insurers and insureds with regard to contested claims.
NRS 616.288 involves the obligation of a principal contractor to pay premiums for its subcontractors and independent contractors and is not applicable in this case.
We also note that, as required under NRS 616.392(1), United did not file its appeal with the SIIS Manager within thirty days after receiving written notice of SIIS's decisions.