Doug Donovan, a former firefighter for the City of Henderson, Nevada, injured his back on duty and filed a workers’ compensation claim, which the City accepted. In 2021, after treatment, he was evaluated and assigned a ten percent permanent partial disability rating. Donovan chose to receive his disability award as a lump sum. Later, after obtaining a second medical evaluation that assessed his impairment at 32%, he sought to reopen his claim for additional benefits. The insurer denied the request, pointing to a statutory bar on revising the disability percentage once a lump sum payment has been elected. Donovan pursued administrative and judicial review, but both the appeals officer and the district court rejected his claim, and the Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed.
The Court explained that because the appeals officer provided two independent grounds for its decision — statutory dismissal and an alternative merits ruling — Donovan was required to challenge both on appeal. While Donovan disputed the statutory bar, he did not address the appeals officer’s merits finding that the medical evidence did not justify an increase. Under Nevada precedent, failing to contest an alternative basis results in waiver. Because Donovan did not challenge the sufficiency-of-the-evidence ruling in his petition for rehearing, petition for judicial review, or opening brief on appeal, the Court held that he had waived the issue. The district court’s denial of judicial review was therefore affirmed.
Donovan v. City of Henderson, 2025 WL 2470437 (Nv. Ct. App. 2025).