Opinion ID: 2533958
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: Typically, an NDAHD hearing officer has jurisdiction over a workers' compensation claim only if the claimant files a timely request for a hearing. [6] Statutory periods for requesting administrative review of workers' compensation determinations are mandatory and jurisdictional. [7] Under NRS 616C.315(3)(b), a request for a hearing is timely when it is filed with the NDAHD within seventy days of the date that the insurer mailed notice of its determination. [8] The Legislature included this provision to shorten the overall administrative process of a workers' compensation claim. [9] In Partlow-Hursh, this court held that a notice of appeal from a hearing officer's decision is filed when the appeals officer receives it, not when it is mailed. [10] The language in the statute addressed in Partlow-Hursh is similar to that in NRS 616C.315(3); both statutes provide that the required document be filed within a specified time period. Moreover, we have previously relied on Partlow-Hursh in concluding that the filing requirement under NRS 616C.315(3) is mandatory and jurisdictional. [11] We see no reason to interpret the filing requirements under the two statutes differently; a request for a hearing is filed when the hearing officer receives it, not when it is mailed. Failure to file a request for a hearing within the statutory period is excused only if the claimant proves by a preponderance of evidence that he or she did not receive the notice of determination and the forms necessary to request a hearing. [12] Seino argues that our interpretation of NRS 616C.315 should be similar to the filing requirements of NRAP 25, which provides that documents filed in this court are filed when mailed. In Partlow-Hursh, this court stated that former NRAP 25 was analogous to administrative filing requirements. [13] At that time, NRAP 25(a) specifically stated that filing was timely when received by the clerk. NRAP 25 was amended in 1988 and currently deems a filing timely when mailed to the clerk. Consequently, NRAP 25 is no longer analogous to administrative filing requirements. Furthermore, the NRAP is not applicable to administrative proceedings. [14] Accordingly, we decline to overrule Partlow-Hursh's rule that administrative workers' compensation appeals are filed when received, not mailed. In this case, the NDAHD did not receive Seino's request for a hearing within the seventy-day period, and Seino conceded that she promptly received both the denial letter and the request for hearing form. Therefore, the appeals officer's conclusion that Seino's request was untimely under NRS 616C.315 is based on substantial evidence.