Before Justices Hardesty, Parraguirre, and Cherry. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
In this appeal, the Court considered whether an appeals officer’s conclusory order in a workers’ compensation matter failed to meet the statutory requirements of NRS 233B.125 by not including findings of fact and conclusions of law. NRS 233B.125 governs adverse written orders in administrative proceedings and states that “a final decision must include findings of facts and conclusions of law, separately stated.” The Court concluded that the appeals officer’s order was deficient by omitting specific findings of fact or citation to the law as required by the plain and unambiguous language of NRS 233B.125. The Court also analyzed whether the doctrines of claim and issue preclusion compelled dismissal of Appellant’s fourth attempt to reopen an industrial injury claim. NRS 616C.390 provided Appellant with a statutory right to request the reopening of his claim and upon written application, the insurer was required to reopen a claim based on a change of circumstances. The Court concluded that the appeals officer erred by applying the doctrines of issue and claim preclusion because the proper analysis is whether there is a change of circumstances. Accordingly, the district court’s rejection of the request to reopen Elizondo’s claim on preclusion grounds was in error. Reversed and remanded. (Lisa M. Wiltshire Alstead, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson LLP.)
