![\"law\"](\"https:\/\/jhwlawoffice.com\/nevada-workers-comp-law-blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/10\/scales-of-justice-lady-1-scaled.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nCase Summary.<\/strong><\/h3>\nThis is a firefighter case, where a firefighter filed a claim for industrial insurance benefits for an occupational disease after he had retired. The claimant in this case, Mr. Bean, worked as a Clark County firefighter and retired in 2011. Three years after he retired, in 2014, he was diagnosed with cancer and had part of his prostate removed. He received a 40% PPD rating and filed a claim for an occupational disease under the Nevada Industrial Insurance Act. (Certain professions like firefighters who develop cancer can file a claim for an occupational disease even after retirement.) See, NRS 617.453(6).<\/p>\n
Clark County accepted Mr. Bean\u2019s case but declined to pay him any benefits for the PPD rating. Clark County based their denial on a 2005 case, where the Nevada Supreme Court held that a workers\u2019 compensation claimant is not entitled to TTD benefits for an occupational disease manifesting after retirement. See<\/u>, Howard v. City of Las Vegas<\/u>, 121 Nev. 691 (2005). However, in 2019 the Nevada Supreme Court held that a retired claimant was entitled to death benefits based on the wages earned immediately before retirement. See<\/u>, DeMaranville v. Employers Insurance Co. of Nevada<\/u>, 135 Nev. 259 (2019).<\/p>\n
Mr. Bean appealed Clark County\u2019s refusal to pay him benefits and won before the Appeals Officer. Clark County then appealed the Decision and Order to District Court and sought a Petition for Judicial Review. The District Court declined the Petition for Judicial Review and thus the Appeals Officer\u2019s Decision and Order would stand. Clark County then appealed to the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada.<\/p>\n
In this case, the Supreme Court stated, \u201cWe conclude that DeMaranville\u2019s<\/u> analysis of compensation for death benefits is directly applicable here because the regulation governing the calculation of compensation for both types of benefits [TTD and PPD benefits] is the same. Furthermore, neither death benefits nor permanent partial disability benefits are statutorily limited based on the amount of work missed, and both are meant to compensate an employee who suffers death or permanent disability resulting from their employment.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Court affirmed the District Court\u2019s denial of Clark County\u2019s Petition for Judicial Review, as the appeals officer correctly found that the retiree was entitled to permanent partial disability [PPD] benefits based on the wages he was earning at the time he retired.\u201d<\/p>\n
Another great decision from the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada!<\/p>\n
Give me a call<\/a> or send an email for a free consultation<\/a> if you have questions or concerns about your Nevada workers’ compensation claim.<\/strong><\/h2>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"On October 8, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court published their decision in Clark County v. Brent Bean, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (2020). The Court took the opportunity to agree with the District Court\u2019s reasoning to deny Clark County\u2019s Petition for Judicial Review that permanent partial disability (\u201cPPD\u201d) benefits differ from temporary total disability (\u201cTTD\u201d) … Continue reading The Nevada Supreme Court Says That PPD Benefits Can Be Paid After An Employee Retires.<\/span>
On October 8, 2020, the Nevada Supreme Court published their decision in Clark County v. Brent Bean, 136 Nev. Adv. Op. 65 (2020). The Court took the opportunity to agree with the District Court\u2019s reasoning to deny Clark County\u2019s Petition for Judicial Review that permanent partial disability (\u201cPPD\u201d) benefits differ from temporary total disability (\u201cTTD\u201d) … Continue reading The Nevada Supreme Court Says That PPD Benefits Can Be Paid After An Employee Retires.<\/span>