Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n

8 Citing cases

  1. Roberts v. State Industrial Insurance System

    114 Nev. 364 (Nev. 1998)   Cited 10 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Stating that this court reviews an appeals officer's determinations on issues of law de novo, but gives deference to the appeals officer's factual findings when supported by substantial evidence

    Accordingly, this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the appeals officer on matters of weight, credibility, or issues of fact. Apeceche v. White Pine Co., 96 Nev. 723, 615 P.2d 975 (1980). On issues of law, this court reviews an appeals officer's determination de novo. Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 683 P.2d 3 (1984). Statutory construction is an issue of law subject to this court's de novo review.

  2. Langman v. Nevada Administrators, Inc.

    114 Nev. 203 (Nev. 1998)   Cited 28 times
    Recognizing that this court's role in reviewing an administrative decision is to determine the propriety of the agency's decision in light of the evidence presented to the agency

    Titanium Metals Corp. v. Clark County, 99 Nev. 397, 399, 663 P.2d 355, 357 (1983); NRS 233B.135. Because this case concerns the construction of a statute, however, independent review is necessary. "The construction of a statute is a question of law, and independent appellate review of an administrative ruling, rather than a more deferential standard of review, is appropriate." Maxwell v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993) (citing Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984); American Int'l Vacations v. MacBride, 99 Nev. 324, 326, 661 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1983)). Whether the applicable burden of proof for reopening a claim under former NRS 616.545 (now NRS 616C.390) is determined by the date of the original industrial injury or by the date of the request to reopen the claim

  3. State Industrial Insurance System v. Miller

    112 Nev. 1112 (Nev. 1996)   Cited 16 times
    Setting forth the rule that the interpretation of a statute by an agency charged with the duty of administering the statute is entitled to deference

    The construction of an administrative statute is a question of law for this court's de novo review. Maxwell v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993); Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984); American Int'l Vacations v. MacBride, 99 Nev. 324, 326, 661 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1983). The relevant portions of NRS 616C.440 state as follows:

  4. Nevada Commission on Ethics v. JMA/Lucchesi

    110 Nev. 1 (Nev. 1994)   Cited 6 times

    Therefore, independent appellate review of an administrative ruling, rather than a more deferential standard of review, is appropriate. Maxwell v. SIIS, 109 Nev. 327, 329, 849 P.2d 267, 269 (1993); Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). Whether the district court gave proper deference to the Commission's interpretation of NRS 281.481(3)

  5. Manke Truck Lines v. Public Service Comm'n

    862 P.2d 1201 (Nev. 1993)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that questions of statutory construction are purely legal issues to be "reviewed without any deference whatsoever to the conclusions of the agency"

    Such issues are reviewed without any deference whatsoever to the conclusions of the agency. See NRS 703.373(6); Jones v. Rosner, 102 Nev. 215, 719 P.2d 805 (1986); Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 683 P.2d 3 (1984). The issue raised by Manke is based on a claim that the PSC proceeded under an inappropriate statute, which did not authorize the PSC to act at all.

  6. Maxwell v. State Industrial Insurance System

    109 Nev. 327 (Nev. 1993)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that this court may not substitute its judgment for that of the administrative agency as to the weight of the evidence on questions of fact

    The construction of a statute is a question of law, and independent appellate review of an administrative ruling, rather than a more deferential standard of review, is appropriate. Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984); American Int'l Vacations v. MacBride, 99 Nev. 324, 326, 661 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1983).

  7. Jessop v. State Industrial Insurance System

    107 Nev. 888 (Nev. 1991)   Cited 2 times

    To overturn the administrative appeals officer's decision, this court may find either that the decision was not supported by substantial evidence or that it was based upon an incorrect conclusion of law. See, e.g., Kraft v. Nev. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 102 Nev. 191, 194, 717 P.2d 583, 584 (1986); Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 324, 683 P.2d 3, 4 (1984). The determination of the appeals officer in this case was based upon NAC 616.678(6), which provides:

  8. Jones v. Rosner

    102 Nev. 215 (Nev. 1986)   Cited 22 times

    Respondent contends, on the other hand, that the cases cited by appellants apply only to questions of fact. Respondent then asserts that whether her acts amounted to misconduct within the meaning of NRS 612.385 is a question of law which may be decided by the district court without deference to the agency. See Nyberg v. Nev. Indus. Comm'n, 100 Nev. 322, 683 P.2d 3 (1984). While it is true that the district court is free to decide pure legal questions without deference to an agency determination, the agency's conclusions of law, which will necessarily be closely related to the agency's view of the facts, are entitled to deference, and will not be disturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence.