Opinion
No. 75156-COA
03-25-2019
JOHN T. WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. LAS VEGAS PARKING, INC.; AND ICW GROUP, Respondents.
ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE
John T. Washington appeals from a district court order dismissing his petition for judicial review of an administrative decision. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Richard Scotti, Judge.
Washington worked for respondent Las Vegas Parking, Inc., which is insured by respondent ICW Group. Washington was injured in the scope of his employment and sought worker's compensation benefits. A hearing officer entered a decision and order on the amount of benefits, and Washington petitioned for judicial review of the determination regarding his average monthly wage calculation.
The district court dismissed Washington's petition for judicial review pursuant to NRS 233B.130(2), determining that the district court did not have jurisdiction where Washington failed to serve the Attorney General and the person serving in the office of administrative head of the relevant agency as required by that statute. This appeal followed.
On appeal, Washington continues to argue the merits of the average monthly wage calculation in accordance with Sierra Nevada Administrators v. Negriev, 128 Nev. 478, 285 P.3d 1056 (2012). These arguments, however, are irrelevant where the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider Washington's petition. See Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers Local 16 v. Labor Comm'r, 134 Nev. ___, ___, 408 P.3d 156, 159 (2018) (explaining that Nevada's appellate courts review questions of law arising in the context of a petition for judicial review de novo); see also Ogawa v. Ogawa, 125 Nev. 660, 667, 221 P.3d 699, 704 (2009) (providing that jurisdiction is a question of law subject to de novo review). And Washington fails to address the district court's jurisdiction based dismissal or otherwise address why the Nevada Attorney General and relevant administrative head were not served. "[F]ailure to strictly comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(c)(1) requires dismissal absent a demonstration of good cause." See Heat, 134 Nev. at ___, 408 P.3d at 159; see also NRS 233B.130(5) (providing that a petition for judicial review must be served within 45 days of filing the petition, but permitting the district court to extend the 45-day period "upon a showing of good cause").
Washington does mention that the required parties did not respond when included via mail from ICW Group regarding ICW Group's response to the petition for judicial review, but does not explain how this is relevant to his failure to serve the required parties per the statute. --------
Because nothing in the record indicates that Washington served his petition on the required parties in the proscribed time period, nor did he seek an extension upon a showing of good cause, and Washington has failed to address the bases for the dismissal of his petition for judicial review on appeal, we determine that the district court properly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear his petition. See NRS 233B.130(2)(c), (5); Heat, 134 Nev. at ___, 408 P.3d at 159-60. Accordingly, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
/s/_________, J.
Tao
/s/_________, J.
Gibbons
/s/_________, J.
Bulla cc: Hon. Richard Scotti, District Judge
John T. Washington
Hooks Meng Schann & Clement
Heaton Fontano, Ltd.
Eighth District Court Clerk