Valdez v. Employers Ins. Co. of Nev., 123 Nev. 170

Summary

The Nevada Supreme Court held that NRS 616C.090, requiring an injured worker to select a treating physician under the terms of the insurer's managed-care contract, applied retroactively to a 1987 workers' compensation claim. The court concluded that physician choice is a procedural and remedial mechanism rather than a vested substantive benefit. The court affirmed the district court's denial of judicial review of the appeals officer's decision requiring Valdez to change physicians.

Holdings

1. An injured worker's choice of treating physician is not a substantive right to compensation or benefits; it is a procedural mechanism for administering the workers' compensation system.
2. NRS 616C.090(3) applies retroactively to Valdez's pending workers' compensation claim because it regulates a procedural and remedial mechanism rather than changing a substantive right.
3. The appeals officer was not required to receive testimony because the material facts were undisputed and the only issue before the officer was a legal question concerning physician choice.

Questions Presented

1. Whether NRS 616C.090(3), enacted after Valdez's 1987 injury, applied retroactively to require him to select a treating physician under EICON's managed-care contract.
2. Whether an injured worker's choice of treating physician is part of a vested substantive workers' compensation benefit or is instead a procedural and remedial mechanism.
3. Whether the appeals officer was required to hold an evidentiary hearing or permit testimony when the material facts were undisputed and the issue was one of statutory interpretation.

Disposition

affirmed