Nortier v. Paul Everet's Rv Country

report, Dr. Monroe responded to the questions contained in the appeals officer's order and opined that he could not find, within a degree of reasonable medical probability, that Nortier's right ankle injury was causally related to her industrial injury. Because Nortier failed to bring her MRI of her left knee to the initial visit, Dr. Monroe also issued an addendum finding that her left knee injury was more consistent with arthritis rather than a work related injury. The appeals officer ultimately denied Nortier's request to expand her worker's compensation claim to include her right ankle. The appeals officer relied on Dr. Monroe's two reports and addendum, finding the reports to be credible in showing Nortier had an extensive preexisting condition that was not aggravated by her industrial injury. Nortier filed a petition for judicial review that was denied by the district court. This appeal followed. "Like the district court, we review an appeals officer's decision in a workers' compensation matter for• clear error or an abuse of discretion." Vredenburg v. Sedgtvick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087 (2008); see NRS 233B.135(3). While the appeals officer's legal determinations are reviewed de novo, "the appeals officer's fact-based legal conclusions are entitled to deference and will not be disturbed if they are supported by substantial evidence." Dickinson v. Am. Med. Response, 124 Nev. 460, 465-66, 186 P.3d 878, 882 (2008). Although the appeals officer misstated the findings in Dr. Monroe's addendum, 1 substantial evidence

nonetheless supports the appeals officer's decision and order. Nortier's medical records indicate three previous surgeries and medical attention to her right Achilles tendon dating back to 2003. Moreover, Nortier's medical records show a pattern of sudden onset Achilles tendon pain without any instance of trauma or injury. Finally, Dr. Monroe documented in his report that a previous surgeon noted in Nortier's medical record that the previous debridement surgeries made the right ankle prone to weakness and rerupture. 2 We therefore affirm the district court's order denying judicial review. It is so ORDERED.

cc: Hon. Timothy C. Williams, District Judge Persi J. Mishel, Settlement Judge Greenman Goldberg Baby & Martinez Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 4 (0) 1947A ea

Footnotes

[1] The appeals officer found that Dr. Monroe reviewed scans of Nortier's right ankle and that based off those scans, he determined that her right ankle condition was not related to the industrial injury. However, Dr. Monroe only reviewed an MRI scan of Nortier's left knee and continued on next page... SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A (e teeA J. Hardesty ima J. Douglas ...continued determined that the injury to her left knee was not related to the industrial injury.

[2] Nortier also argues that the reports of Dr. Monroe are contradictory, such that they cannot constitute substantial evidence. We conclude that this argument lacks merit. SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 3 (0) 1947A 4104.