Before the Court En Banc. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
In this appeal, the Court considered whether the collateral source rule operated to exclude evidence of California workers' compensation payments received by a California employee involved in an accident in Nevada. Reversing and remanding, the Court determined that evidence of the actual amount of workers' compensation benefits paid should have been admitted to the jury pursuant to NRS 616C.215, which permits the admission of such evidence in limited circumstances. Although NRS 616C.215 permits the admission of evidence regarding workers' compensation payments to a jury in certain circumstances provided that a clarifying jury instruction is given, the district court granted a motion in limine finding that the statute did not apply because the respondent received her worker's compensation pursuant to California's workers' compensation scheme and not Nevada's workers’ compensation scheme. Reversing, the Court held that the district court's narrow reading of NRS 616C.215 as applying to only Nevada workers' compensation benefits would defeat the statute's purpose of avoiding confusion to the jury about the payment and nature of workers' compensation benefits in cases in which those benefits have been paid under another state's laws. The Court found no logical reason to treat benefits received pursuant to another state's workers' compensation scheme any differently than benefits received from a Nevada employer. Therefore, in a trial governed by Nevada law, the workers' compensation payments made to an injured employee must be admitted as evidence and the proper instruction regarding the jury's consideration of those payments must be given. Additionally, although the Court specifically ordered briefing to determine whether a reduction in the cost of medical services based on a relationship with an insurance company, a medical “write-down”, was a benefit for which evidence would be barred by the collateral source rule, the majority held that because NRS 616C.215 specifically allows evidence of the benefits actually paid they did not need to address the issue of medical write-downs generally. Justice Gibbons, in a concurring opinion with which Justice Cherry joined, would reach the issue and hold that the collateral source rule bars evidence of medical write-downs. Reversed and Remanded. (Amanda C. Yen, Associate in the Las Vegas office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP).
