Opinion ID: 2636802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Whether the appeals officer correctly interpreted NRS 616C.025(1)

Text: Barrick argues that the appeals officer erred in ruling that filing either a notice of injury or a claim for compensation satisfies NRS 616C.025(1). Instead, Barrick contends that NRS 616C.025(1) requires the filing of both a notice of injury, pursuant to NRS 616C.015(1), and a claim for compensation, pursuant to NRS 616C.020(1). Thus, if an employee fails to file either a notice of injury or a claim for compensation, the employee is, at least presumptively, barred from receiving benefits. We agree. The construction of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. See State, Dep't of Mtr. Vehicles v. Lovett, 110 Nev. 473, 476, 874 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1994); see also American Int'l Vacations v. MacBride, 99 Nev. 324, 326, 661 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1983) (holding that this court may independently review the administrative construction of a statute). Additionally, in interpreting statutes, [t]his court has long held that statutes should be given their plain meaning. Alsenz v. Clark Co. School Dist., 109 Nev. 1062, 1065, 864 P.2d 285, 286 (1993). Moreover, [t]his court has consistently upheld the plain meaning of the statutory scheme in workers' compensation laws. SIIS v. Prewitt, 113 Nev. 616, 619, 939 P.2d 1053, 1055 (1997). How we should interpret NRS 616C.025(1) is an issue of first impression in Nevada. NRS 616C.025(1) provides: Except as otherwise provided in subsection 2, an employee or, in the event of the death of the employee, his dependent, is barred from recovering compensation pursuant to the provisions of chapters 616A to 616D, inclusive, of NRS if he fails to file a notice of injury pursuant to NRS 616C.015 or a claim for compensation pursuant to NRS 616C.020. After a careful review of NRS Chapter 616C, we conclude that the legislature established a comprehensive statutory scheme for workers' compensation claims that begins with a two-step process. First, under NRS 616C.015(1), [1] an injured employee must provide written notice of a work-related injury to the employer within seven days of the injury. Second, under NRS 616C.020(1), [2] the employee must file a claim for compensation for the injury within ninety days of the accident. In accordance with NRS 616C.015(1) and NRS 616C.020(1), NRS 616C.025(1) expressly provides that an injured employee is barred from receiving compensation if the employee fails to file a notice of injury or fails to file a claim for compensation. In this case, the appeals officer interpreted NRS 616C.025(1) to merely require the filing of either a notice of injury or a claim for compensation. Pursuant to the plain language of NRS 616C.025(1), we conclude that an injured employee must file both a notice of injury and a claim for compensation in order to receive benefits. Accordingly, we conclude that the appeals officer interpreted NRS 616C.025(1) erroneously in this case. Peterson contends that the ninety-day deadline provided for in NRS 616C.020(1) is inapplicable in this case. Specifically, Peterson argues that the statute only appears to apply if an employee seeks medical treatment within ninety days of the accident. See NRS 616C.020(1)(a). Here, Peterson sought treatment 111 days after he sustained his injury at Barrick. Although we acknowledge this apparent gap in NRS 616C.020(1), this case involves an unusual factual scenario because most injuries will generally manifest themselves within the ninety-day period. Moreover, to conclude that Peterson is excused from complying with NRS 616C.020(1) would inevitably lead to cases where the statute is rendered inoperative. See Charlie Brown Constr. Co. v. Boulder City, 106 Nev. 497, 502, 797 P.2d 946, 949 (1990) (It is elementary that statutes... must be construed as a whole and not be read in a way that would render words or phrases superfluous or make a provision nugatory.), overruled on other grounds by Calloway v. City of Reno, 116 Nev. ___, 993 P.2d 1259 (2000). Additionally, as noted above, the legislature set up an explicit two-step procedure in an effort to lend order and predictability to the entire workers' compensation process. If we began crafting exceptions to this otherwise unambiguous procedure, it is not difficult to imagine the absurd results that would inevitably flow from such exceptions. See Welfare Div. v. Washoe Co. Welfare Dep't, 88 Nev. 635, 638, 503 P.2d 457, 459 (1972) (The entire subject matter and the policy of the law may also be involved to aid in its interpretation, and it should always be construed as to avoid absurd results.). Accordingly, subject to the provisions of NRS 616C.025(2), we conclude that an injured employee must file a claim for compensation under NRS 616C.020(1) within ninety days of the accident regardless of whether the injured employee seeks medical treatment within the ninety-day period. [3]