Valdez v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev.

162 P.3d 148, 123 Nev. 170, 123 Nev. Adv. Rep. 21, 2007 Nev. LEXIS 31

Opinions

Maupin, C. J.,

concurring:

I agree that a neutral interpretation of our ambiguous workers’ compensation statutory scheme compels the result reached by the majority. I write separately to note my continued concern that the neutrality rule embodied in NRS 616A.010(2)-(4) has operated again to the distinct disadvantage of a profoundly injured Nevada worker.¹ Here, a wheelchair-bound quadriplegic must, at the administrative whim of a managed care entity, now see a doctor located miles from his place of residence in order to receive essential medical care.

In short, we are compelled by our oaths of office to enforce this terrible rule.²

1

See Grover C. Dils Med. Ctr. v. Menditto, 121 Nev. 278, 112 P.3d 1093 (2004).

2

The neutrality rule was enacted to address the financial decline of the former State Industrial Insurance System. In my view, this rule is no longer necessary now that the Nevada workers’ compensation system has been privatized and its successor, the respondent in this case, has become an enormous economic success. The Legislature should revisit this rule in order to bring more fairness to Nevada workers.