Bird v. Eicon

Nevada Supreme Court

Bird v. Eicon

DecidedJuly 24, 2013

Docket59026

StatusUnpublished

This text of Bird v. Eicon (Bird v. Eicon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nevada Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bird v. Eicon, (Neb. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

the offset specified in the agreement. Bird filed a petition for judicial review, which the district court denied, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Bird, through his workers' compensation attorney, argues that the subrogation agreement is unenforceable because Bird's personal injury attorney, and not his workers' compensation attorney, negotiated the terms of the agreement. Bird presents no authority to support his argument that the negotiation of the subrogation agreement had to specifically go through his workers' compensation attorney, as opposed to his personal injury attorney, and thus, we do not consider the argument. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (noting that it is a party's "responsibility to cogently argue, and present relevant authority, in support of his appellant concerns"). Further, it is undisputed that Bird's personal injury attorney was retained as counsel. A client is generally held responsible for his attorney's actions. See Lange v. Hickman, 92 Nev. 41, 43, 544 P.2d 1208, 1209 (1976). Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the appeals officer's factual determination that Bird and EICON had entered into a subrogation agreement is supported by substantial evidence. See Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 n.4, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087 n.4 (2008) ("Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequately supporting a conclusion." (internal quotation omitted)); May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672-73, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2005) (recognizing that whether a contract exists is a question of fact). We also conclude that the decision is not affected by any error of law. See NRS 616C.215 (providing for the

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A

£41C011 MINIM reduction of workers' compensation benefits by the amount of personal injury damages recovered from a third-party for the same injuries). Therefore, we affirm the district court's order denying judicial review. It is so ORDERED.

Hardesty

e Parraguirre

Ciu,6 Cherry

cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge William F. Buchanan, Settlement Judge Clark & Richards Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A

NIEMI SUM= MitDREEMISEUMMINEll

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

the offset specified in the agreement. Bird filed a petition for judicial review, which the district court denied, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Bird, through his workers' compensation attorney, argues that the subrogation agreement is unenforceable because Bird's personal injury attorney, and not his workers' compensation attorney, negotiated the terms of the agreement. Bird presents no authority to support his argument that the negotiation of the subrogation agreement had to specifically go through his workers' compensation attorney, as opposed to his personal injury attorney, and thus, we do not consider the argument. See Edwards v. Emperor's Garden Rest., 122 Nev. 317, 330 n.38, 130 P.3d 1280, 1288 n.38 (2006) (noting that it is a party's "responsibility to cogently argue, and present relevant authority, in support of his appellant concerns"). Further, it is undisputed that Bird's personal injury attorney was retained as counsel. A client is generally held responsible for his attorney's actions. See Lange v. Hickman, 92 Nev. 41, 43, 544 P.2d 1208, 1209 (1976). Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on appeal, we conclude that the appeals officer's factual determination that Bird and EICON had entered into a subrogation agreement is supported by substantial evidence. See Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557 n.4, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087 n.4 (2008) ("Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable person could accept as adequately supporting a conclusion." (internal quotation omitted)); May v. Anderson, 121 Nev. 668, 672-73, 119 P.3d 1254, 1257 (2005) (recognizing that whether a contract exists is a question of fact). We also conclude that the decision is not affected by any error of law. See NRS 616C.215 (providing for the