Having considered the parties' arguments and the record on
appeal, we conclude that substantial evidence supported the appeals
officer's determination that appellant was ineligible for PTD benefits. In
particular, the record demonstrates that appellant was found to have only
a five-percent whole person impairment. The record also demonstrates
that a functional capacity evaluation was performed on appellant and that
the evaluation found appellant to be capable of performing medium-duty
work. The record further demonstrates that a labor market survey listed
potential job availabilities in the Mesquite area that could have possibly
satisfied appellant's medium-duty work restrictions. Thus, the appeals
officer was within her discretion in concluding that appellant's physical
abilities counterbalanced appellant's age, experience, training, and
education so as to render him ineligible for PTD benefits under the odd-lot
doctrine.' Elizondo, 129 Nev. at , 312 P.3d at 482; Hildebrand, 100
Nev. at 51, 675 P.2d at 404. We therefore
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J,
Hardesty
J.
Douglas - Cherry
lAppellant argues that the appeals officer should have given more
credence to Gerald Davis's opinion that appellant was entitled to PTD
benefits. The appeals officer indicated, however, that Mr. Davis did not
consider appellant's low whole person impairment or the functional
capacity evaluation in rendering his opinion. Thus, we cannot conclude
that the appeals officer abused her discretion by not giving more weight to
Mr. Davis's opinion. Elizondo, 129 Nev. at , 312 P.3d at 482
(recognizing that this court defers to an appeals officer's credibility
determinations).
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A e
cc: Hon. Jessie Elizabeth Walsh, District Judge
Janet Trost, Settlement Judge
Diaz & Galt, LLC/Reno
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A