Opinion ID: 2611462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Relevant law under NIIA

Text: Since NIIA was enacted, this court has held that compensation from SIIS is the sole remedy an injured employee has against his employer when the injury resulted from an accident which arose out of and in the course of his employment. [1] Frith v. Harrah South Shore Corp., 92 Nev. 447, 452, 552 P.2d 337, 340 (1976); see also NRS 616.270(3) (recodified as NRS 616B.612(3)) (the employer shall be relieved from other liability for recovery of damages or other compensation for such personal injury); NRS 616.370(1) (recodified as NRS 616A.020(1)) ([t]he rights and remedies provided in this chapter for an employee on account of an injury by accident sustained arising out of and in the course of the employment shall be exclusive). However, NRS 616.560(1)(a) provided: 1. When an employee coming under the provisions of this chapter receives an injury for which compensation is payable under this chapter and which was caused under circumstances creating a legal liability in some person, other than the employer or a person in the same employ, to pay damages thereof: (a) The injured employee . . . may take proceedings against that person to recover damages. . . . (Emphasis added.) Therefore, an injured employee may sue a third person in common law if that third person is not the employee's statutory employer or co-employee. This begs the question of who is a statutory employer or co-employee in the same employ. NRS 616.085(1) stated, in part, that all subcontractors, independent contractors [2] and the employees of either shall be deemed to be the employees of the principal contractor. Therefore, NIIA provides the exclusive remedy of any employee of a subcontractor injured as a result of the negligence of another subcontractor's employee working for the same principal contractor because they are considered to be working in the same employ; hence, they are statutory co-employees. Aragonez v. Taylor Steel Co., 85 Nev. 718, 719-20, 462 P.2d 754, 755 (1969). This concept was expanded in Stolte, Inc. v. District Court, 89 Nev. 257, 259, 510 P.2d 870, 871 (1973), where the issue was whether a sub-subcontractor is also a statutory employee under NIIA. This court held that [t]he overall scheme of [NIIA] is to provide coverage for all employees working for, or under, the principal contractor. The provisions of NRS Chapter 616 are construed to include sub-subcontractors as well as subcontractors and independent contractors. Id. (emphasis added). In the present case, it is clear that Action is a subcontractor according to NRS 624.020, which defines contractor as 2. [A]ny person . . . who in any capacity . . . undertakes to, or offers to undertake to . . . construct, alter, repair, add to, subtract from, improve, move, wreck or demolish any building . . . or do any part thereof, including the erection of scaffolding or other structures or works in connection therewith. . . . 3. A contractor within the meaning of this chapter includes subcontractor or specialty contractor. . . . (Emphasis added.) As Action provided the scaffolding and its installation, we conclude that Action was a subcontractor under this definition. [3] Having thus concluded that Action was a subcontractor, the next inquiry is whether it is a statutory co-employee for the purposes of NIIA immunity.