the claim. Appellant then petitioned for judicial review, which the district
court denied, and this appeal followed.
This court's role in reviewing an administrative agency's
decision is identical to that of the district court. Elizondo v. Hood Mach.,
Inc., 129 Nev. , 312 P.3d 479, 482 (2013). In particular, this court
reviews an administrative agency's factual findings for clear error or an
arbitrary abuse of discretion, and will only overturn those findings if they
are not supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is
that which a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support the
agency's conclusion. Id. "The burden of proof is on the party seeking to
reopen the claim." State Indus. Ins. Sys. v. Hicks, 100 Nev. 567, 569, 688
P.2d 324, 325 (1984).
Having considered appellant's arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the appeals
officer's determination that appellant failed to establish that the primary
cause of his change in circumstances was his industrial injury. 2 Although
appellant contends that both physicians who evaluated him opined that
the industrial injury was the primary cause of his change in
circumstances, the appeals officer gave due consideration to these
opinions. Specifically, as for Dr. BaIle's opinion, the appeals officer
ordered appellant to undergo an independent medical evaluation because
Dr. Balle had not adequately reviewed appellant's medical records in
rendering his opinion. And as for Dr. Perry's opinion, the appeals officer
noted that Dr. Perry had partially attributed appellant's back pain to
2 Becausethis determination was supported by substantial evidence,
we need not consider respondents' alternative argument that there was no
change in circumstances.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 19474 eo
areas of appellant's back that were outside the scope of appellant's
originally accepted claim. Accordingly, the appeals officer was within her
discretion in determining the amount of weight to give to these opinions.'
Elizondo, 129 Nev. at , 312 P.3d at 482 (recognizing that this court
defers to an appeals officer's credibility determinations).
Nonetheless, appellant contends that the scope of his initially
approved claim extended beyond the L5-S1 disc level and that, by
attributing appellant's pain to areas of his back other than the L5-S1
level, the appeals officer improperly reconsidered the initial
compensability of appellant's claim. See Day v. Washoe Cnty. Sch. Dist.,
121 Nev. 387, 391, 116 P.3d 68, 70-71 (2005) (explaining that revisiting
the original decision of what conditions were industrially related is
improper when evaluating a reopening request). This argument is
without merit, as appellant has not cited to any documentation in the
record showing that the scope of his claim extended beyond the L5-S1
leve1. 4 Therefore, it was not clearly erroneous for the appeals officer to
characterize the scope of appellant's claim as being limited to the L5-S1
level. Elizondo, 129 Nev. at , 312 P.3d at 482.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supported the appeals
officer's determination that appellant failed to satisfy his burden that his
'The appeals officer was likewise within her discretion when she
refused to give weight to the clarification that appellant obtained from Dr.
Perry after the appeals officer's decision had been rendered. Elizondo, 129
Nev. at 312 P.3d at 482.
4 To the contrary, the 1991 PPD award that appellant accepted
appears to pertain specifically to the L5-S1 level. See NRS 616C.495(2)
(indicating that a claimant's acceptance of a lump sum payment
"constitutes a final settlement of all factual and legal issues in the case").
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A are
claim should be reopened. Id.; Wright v. State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 121
Nev. 122, 125, 110 P.3d 1066, 1068 (2005) (recognizing that substantial
evidence may be inferred from a lack of certain evidence); Hicks, 100 Nev.
at 569, 688 P.2d at 325. We therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
ering
Parragiiirren
J.
Saitta
cc: Hon. Gloria Sturman, District Judge
Janet Trost, Settlement Judge
Benson, Bertoldo, Baker & Carter, Chtd.
Floyd, Skeren & Kelly
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A