Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Prevost v. State

Supreme Court of Nevada

May 31, 2018

ROBAIRE PREVOST, Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, APPEALS OFFICER, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF NEVADA; AND CCMSI, Respondents.

          Appeal 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, Judge.

          Kemp & Kemp and James P. Kemp, Las Vegas, for Appellant.

          Adam Paul Laxalt, Attorney General, Carson City, for Respondent State of Nevada Department of Administration, Appeals Officer.

          Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP, and Daniel L. Schwartz, Las Vegas, for Respondent CCMSI.

         BEFORE THE COURT EN BANC.

          OPINION

          PARRAGUIRRE, J.

         This is 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.

         FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

         Appellant 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 denial.[1]

         In 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.

         Nonetheless, 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).[2] 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.

         DISCUSSION

         On 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.

         NRS 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 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.