1. Home
  2. State Courts
  3. Nevada
  4. Clark County District Courts
  5. Tristar Risk Management, Plaintiff(S) Vs. The Board For Administration Of The Subsequent Injury Account For Self-Insured , Defendant(S)
SEARCH TIPS
"" "23STCV06307" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
~ "motion to dismiss"~3 Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "amend" Either terms can appear in document
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
To learn more visit - https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators
Date
"" "23STCV06307" Exact match of phrase
* negligen* Match anything after the *
( ) "motion" AND ("dismiss" OR "summary") Grouping of terms
~ "motion to dismiss"~3 Maximum number of positions allowed between matching words
AND "damages" AND "injuries" AND "relief" Both terms must appear in document
OR "modify" OR "amend" Either terms can appear in document
judge:last-name judge:Abbot Filter by a specific judge name.
party:party-name party:"Apple inc" Filter by a specific party name.
To learn more visit - https://support.trellis.law/boolean-operators

Contents

Details Parties Case Events

We are checking for the latest updates in this case. We will email you when the process is complete.

Tristar Risk Management, Plaintiff(S) Vs. The Board For Administration Of The Subsequent Injury Account For Self-Insured , Defendant(S)

Case Last Refreshed: 3 years ago

Track Case Changes
Download Docket Print Docket

Tristar Risk Management, filed a(n) Civil Petition For Judicial Review case represented by John P Lavery, against The Board For Administration Of The Subsequent Injury Account For Self-Insured, represented by Charles R. Zeh, in the jurisdiction of Clark County, NV, . Clark County, NV Superior Courts with Williams, Timothy C. presiding.

Case Details for Tristar Risk Management v. The Board For Administration Of The Subsequent Injury Account For Self-Insured

Case Number

(Subscribe to View) Track Case Changes

Judge

Williams, Timothy C. Track Judge’s New Cases

Filing Date

December 27, 2012

Category

Civil Petition For Judicial Review

Last Refreshed

November 24, 2020

Filing Location

Clark County, NV

Case Outcome Type

Order Denying Judicial Review

Parties for Tristar Risk Management v. The Board For Administration Of The Subsequent Injury Account For Self-Insured

Plaintiffs

Tristar Risk Management

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

John P Lavery

Defendants

The Board For Administration Of The Subsequent Injury Account For Self-Insured

Attorneys for Defendants

Charles R. Zeh

Case Events for Tristar Risk Management v. The Board For Administration Of The Subsequent Injury Account For Self-Insured

Date Type Description
March 04, 2014 Docket Event Notice of Entry of Order
March 03, 2014 Docket Event Order Denying Petition for Review and Affirming the Decision of the Board for Administration of the Subsequent Injury Account for Self-Insured Employers
January 14, 2014 Docket Event Petition for Judicial Review - Oral Argument
Ms. Helmbold argued regarding the injury to the knee and timeline of subsequent injuries, and the notice regarding subsequent claims. Arguments regarding 2003 injury is a continuance of the 1993 injury. Further, there is no evidence that the form that is required to be sent to DIR, was not received. Further arguments. Mr. Zeh argued regarding the second notice and argued the C3 & C4 forms is notification of existing claims, not notification to the board. Each time there is a subsequent injury, there must be notice and there was never notice of the 2003 claim. Arguments regarding statute being amended. Colloquy regarding statute with potential jurisdictional nature. Colloquy regarding retroactively applying the statute, would mean the legislature would have to have put that in. Further arguments regarding the 100 day requirement, C3 & C4 forms and the notice in 1994. Further arguments. COURT ORDERED, matter CONTINUE for CHAMBERS DECISION.

Judge: Williams, Timothy C.
January 14, 2014 Docket Event Decision: Petitioner for Judicial Review
After a review and consideration of the record, the points and authorities on file herein, and argument of counsel, Petitioner, Tristar Risk Management s Petition for Judicial Review is hereby DENIED. In this case, the thrust and scope of the dispute between the parties is whether the 2007 amendment to NRS 616.775(5), wherein the Legislature repealed the statute s 100-week notice requirement, constitutes a substantive or procedural right for the purposes of retroactive application. In Nevada, there is a general presumption that statutes operate prospectively, unless the Legislature clearly manifests an intent to apply the statute retroactively, or it clearly, strongly and imperatively appears that the Legislature s intent cannot be implemented in any other fashion. After a review of the legislative history, the Court finds no evidence that the Legislature intended to retroactively apply its repeal of the 100-week notification requirement under NRS 616.775(5), or any intent that all claims previously denied under this provision shall be revived by the amendment. COURT FINDS that Petitioner s employee sustained an industrial knee injury in April of 2003; however, Petitioner failed to send notification of this subsequent injury claim within the 100-week time limit mandated by NRS 616.775(5). Instead, Petitioner submitted an application for reimbursement for the 2003 injury in June of 2009 more than six years after the 2003 subsequent industrial injury occurred. Prior to the 2007 amendments, NRS 616.775(5) was silent as to whether the 100-week time limit for notification could be excused. Under Nevada law, where a statute is silent, the time period is generally considered to be mandatory, not procedural. See State Indus. Ins. System v. Partlow-Hursh, 101 Nev. 122 (1985). Therefore, the Court finds that the 100-week time limit required under the previous version of NRS 616.775(5) imposed a mandatory, substantive right. The Court also finds that the Board s interpretation of NRS 616B.557(5), as written and amended, and the Board s decision to deny Petitioner s application for reimbursement is supported by substantial evidence in the record on appeal and is neither arbitrary nor capricious. As such, the Board s decision shall be AFFIRMED and the Petition for Judicial Review is hereby DENIED. Counsel for Respondent shall prepare the Order, Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in accordance with the Minute Order and the record in the instant action. MINUTES AMENDED TO INCLUDE CLERK'S NOTE: Minute order sent via email to nancy.helmbold@lewisbrisbois.com; crzeh@alo.com/stl/2/12/14

Judge: Williams, Timothy C.
November 26, 2013 Docket Event Notice of Hearing for Oral Argument
July 22, 2013 Docket Event Stipulation to Extend Time for Respondents to File Answering Brief
July 22, 2013 Docket Event Respondent's Answering Brief
Respondents' Answering Brief
June 28, 2013 Docket Event Order Extending Time for Respondents to File Answering Brief
June 28, 2013 Docket Event Notice of Entry of Order
June 08, 2013 Docket Event Motion for Order to Extend Time for Respondents to File Answering Brief
See all events
Request redaction

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.