Opinion ID: 1124392
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Apportionment under NRS 616.580 [4]

Text: NRS 616.575, at the time of this industrial injury, read as follows: Permanent total disability: Injuries deemed total and permanent. 1. In cases of the following specified injuries, in the absence of proof to the contrary, the disability caused thereby shall be deemed total and permanent: (a) The total and permanent loss of sight of both eyes. (b) The loss by separation of both legs at or above the knee. (c) The loss by separation of both arms at or above the elbow. (d) An injury to the spine resulting in permanent and complete paralysis of both legs or both arms, or one leg and one arm. (e) An injury to the skull resulting in incurable imbecility or insanity. (f) The loss by separation of one arm at or above the elbow, and one leg by separation at or above the knee. 2. The enumeration in subsection 1 is not exclusive, and in all other cases permanent total disability must be determined by the insurer in accordance with the facts presented. To qualify for permanent total disability status, a claimant's disability must either fall under one of the scheduled disabilities listed under NRS 616.575(1) [5] , or qualify under the residual catch-all category as provided in NRS 616.575(2) for injuries not specifically enumerated in subsection (1). Awards of disability under subsection (2) implicate what is commonly referred to as the odd-lot doctrine. Nevada Indus. Comm'n v. Hildebrand, 100 Nev. 47, 675 P.2d 401 (1984). [6] The parties to this appeal agree that Rosser's disability falls within the odd-lot category. Where a claimant is deemed permanently and totally disabled, NRS 616.580 (now NRS 616C.440) requires that, under certain circumstances, previous disabilities (extant at the time of the subject or subsequent industrial injury) be apportioned from any permanent total disability award. At the time relevant to this claim, NRS 616.580(1)(b) provided in relevant part: (b) If there is a previous disability, as the loss of one eye, one hand, one foot or any other previous permanent disability, the percentage of disability for a subsequent injury must be determined by computing the percentage of the entire disability and deducting therefrom the percentage of the previous disability as it existed at the time of the subsequent injury. [7] Rosser contends that an apportionment of a permanent total disability is improper if the preexisting condition is non-disabling. He maintains that respondents were not justified in apportioning thirty-six percent of his PTD award because he was not disabled by his preexisting heart condition. Thus, Rosser's argument turns on whether his heart condition constituted a disability for purposes of 616.580(1)(b). He also contends that the AMA Guides should not have been utilized because they are inapplicable to PTD claims.