appellant's reopening request after finding that no additional medical
treatment for his infarction was warranted. The district court denied
appellant's petition for judicial review, and this appeal followed.
The administrative record contains evidence indicating that
appellant's condition related to his industrial infarction condition had
worsened and also evidence, albeit conflicting, that additional medical
treatment was not warranted for that condition, and thus, substantial
evidence supports the appeals officer's factual determinations. NRS
233B.135(3) (setting forth the standard of review); Nellis Motors v. State,
Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 124 Nev. 1263, 1269-70, 197 P.3d 1061, 1066
(2008) (defining substantial evidence and explaining that this court will
not reweigh the evidence or substitute our judgment for that of the
appeals officer on questions of fact). Nevertheless, the appeals officer
erred when, after finding that appellant's industrially related condition
had worsened, she denied claim reopening without addressing whether the
changed circumstances warranted an increase or rearrangement of
compensation other than medical treatment. See NRS 616C.390(1)
(providing that a claim shall be reopened if there is a change of
circumstances primarily caused by the industrial injury that warrants an
increase of compensation and the reopening request is accompanied by a
physician's certificate showing those changes); NRS 616A.090 (defining
l(
compensation"); Las Vegas Hous. Auth. v. Root, 116 Nev. 864, 868, 8 P.3d
143, 146 (2000) ("NRS 616C.390 requires proof of a change of
circumstances and proof that the primary cause of the change of
circumstances is the injury for which the claim was originally made.");
Jerry's Nugget v. Keith, 111 Nev. 49, 53, 888 P.2d 921, 924 (1995) (holding
that rehabilitation services, not just accident benefits, can be awarded
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 1947A
upon claim reopening for a change in circumstances); see also Vredenburg
v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087-88 (2008)
(reviewing appeals officer's decision for clear error or an abuse of
discretion). Accordingly, we reverse the district court's order denying
appellant's petition for judicial review and remand this matter to the
district court with instructions to remand the case to the appeals officer
for further proceedings consistent with this order.
It is so ORDERED.
Parraguirre
, J.
cc: Hon. David B. Barker, District Judge
Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge
Clark & Richards
Alverson Taylor Mortensen & Sanders
Eighth District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) 1947A e