Opinion ID: 1193400
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Suit against the NIC.

Text: Below, appellants attempted to recover damages in a common law negligence action against the NIC in addition to receiving a NIC compensation award for disability. They cite NRS 616.560 as authority that actions may be maintained against some person, other than the employer or a person in the same employ. Appellants then contend that the NIC satisfies neither description and is thus a permissible defendant in a suit which alleges that negligent delay in authorization for specialized treatment resulted in the loss of his eyesight. We agree. Appellant cites Nelson v. Union Wire Rope Corporation, 31 Ill.2d 69, 199 N.E.2d 769 (1964); Fabricius v. Montgomery Elevator Company, 254 Iowa 1319, 121 N.W.2d 361 (1963); and Mays v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, 323 F.2d 174 (3rd Cir.1963), for the proposition that a workman's compensation insurance carrier is distinguished from the workman's employer and thus a permissible defendant in a subsequent trial. In Nelson, supra, although the Illinois Supreme Court interpreted Florida law to find a carrier was subject to suit, a Florida court subsequently rejected that analysis and interpreted the statute to confer immunity. Carroll v. Zurich Insurance Company, 286 So.2d 21 (Fla.App. 1973). After the Fabricius and Mays decisions, the respective legislatures amended the statutes to expressly grant immunity to carriers. See, Iowa Acts 1965 (61 G.A.) Ch. 107, § 14 (repealed); Pa. Stat. Ann., Title 77, § 501 (supp. 1967). See also, Modjeski v. Atwell, Vogel & Sterling, Inc., 309 F. Supp. 119 (D.Minn. 1969), and Brown v. Travelers Insurance Company, 434 Pa. 507, 254 A.2d 27 (1969). Thus, in those cases, when immunity has not been expressly given by statute, such immunity was subsequently provided either through judicial interpretation or statutory amendment. We believe the better rule to be not an equation of the NIC with the employer but rather that the third party referred to in NRS 616.560 is one other than the employer and a co-employee, thus making the NIC a permissive defendant. Mager v. United Hospitals of Newark, 88 N.J. Super. 421, 212 A.2d 664 (1965). In Nevada, unlike New Jersey, the carrier is the Commission itself, but we are unpersuaded by this distinction, as the complaint here is not based upon the employer-employee relationship. See, Szydlowski v. General Motors Corp., 59 Mich. App. 180, 229 N.W.2d 365 (1975). Here, since Nevada's statutory scheme does not expressly equate the NIC with the employer and afford the concomitant protection from suit, we hold that respondents are not insulated through Chapter 616, the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act. Had the Nevada Legislature contemplated that the Nevada Industrial Commission stand in the place and stead of the employer in administering workman's compensation benefits in this factual context and further contemplated employers rely solely on the NIC as a means of fulfilling their liabilities or responsibilities to employees, its intention would have been plain and unambiguous. Compare, Public Service Commission of Nevada v. District Court, 94 Nev. 42, 574 P.2d 272 (1978); Schoonover v. Caudill, 65 N.M. 335, 337 P.2d 402 (1959). Although the contention is persuasive, this should be made to the legislature and not this Court. A statute will not be construed as taking away a common law right existing at the time of its enactment unless that result is imperatively required, Fabricius, supra, 121 N.W.2d at 362, and we conclude our Legislature has not made such imperatively required in this instance.