from a district court order dismissing a petition for
judicial review in a workers' compensation matter. Eighth
Judicial District Court, Clark County; Kerry Louise Earley,
& Kemp and James P. Kemp, Las Vegas, for Appellant.
Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent
State of Nevada Department of Administration, Appeals
Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, and Daniel L. Schwartz,
Las Vegas, for Respondent CCMSI.
THE COURT EN BANC.
an appeal from an order dismissing a petition for judicial
review under NRS 233B. 130(2). In particular, NRS
233B.130(2)(a) provides that a petition for judicial review
must "[n]ame as respondents the agency and all parties
of record to the administrative proceeding." In this
appeal, we are asked to determine whether the failure to name
a party of record in the caption of a petition for judicial
review is jurisdictionally fatal under NRS 233B.130(2)(a)
where the party is named in the body of the petition and is
properly served with the petition. We conclude that NRS
233B.130(2)(a) does not require dismissal on these facts, and
we therefore reverse and remand.
AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Robaire Prevost, a former corrections officer employed by the
State of Nevada, Department of Corrections (NDOC), filed a
workers' compensation claim, alleging that various
medical conditions were caused by the stress of his job.
Respondent Cannon Cochran Management Services, Inc. (CCMSI),
as NDOC's third-party administrator, denied Prevost's
workers' compensation claim, Prevost administratively
appealed CCMSI's denial, and an appeals officer
ultimately issued a decision and order affirming CCMSI's
January 2016, Prevost timely filed a petition for judicial
review of the appeals officer's decision with the
district court. The caption of the petition for judicial
review listed NDOC and the Department of Administration as
respondents, but did not individually identify CCMSI.
However, the appeals officer's order and decision, which
identified CCMSI, was attached and incorporated into the body
of the petition. Moreover, CCMSI and its counsel were served
with the petition.
in March 2016, CCMSI moved to dismiss the petition, alleging
that the failure to name CCMSI in the caption rendered the
petition jurisdictionally defective pursuant to NRS
233B.130(2)(a) and Washoe County v. Otto, 128 Nev.
424, 282 P.3d 719 (2012). Prevost subsequently filed an
opposition to CCMSI's motion to dismiss, as well as a
motion to amend the caption of his petition for judicial
review to add CCMSI. The district court summarily granted
CCMSI's motion to dismiss, denied Prevost's motion to
amend, and dismissed Prevost's petition for judicial
review with prejudice. This appeal follows.
appeal, Prevost argues that the district court erred in
dismissing his petition for judicial review on the basis that
it failed to comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(a). We agree.
233B.130(2)(a) provides that "[p]etitions for judicial
review must. . . [n] ame as respondents the agency and all
parties of record to the administrative proceeding." In
Otto, this court concluded that "pursuant to
NRS 233B, 130(2)(a), it is mandatory to name all parties of
record in a petition for judicial review of an
administrative decision, and a district court lacks
jurisdiction to consider a petition that fails to comply with
this requirement." 128 Nev. at 432-33, 282 P.3d at 725
(2012) (emphasis added). There, this court determined that
petitioner Washoe County failed to comply with NRS
233B.130(2)(a) because Washoe County did not "name any
[respondent] taxpayer individually in the caption, in the
body of the amended petition, or in an attachment."
Id. at 430, 282 P.3d at 724 (emphasis ...