Thursday, November 19, 2015 - William S. Boyd School of Law - UNLV

Palardy vs. Sunset Station/Station Casinos, Inc.
Docket Number: 65504
William S. Boyd School of Law - UNLV - 10:00 a.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver

On the night of Friday, September 16, 2011, Appellant Mark Palardy, who was employed by Respondent Sunset Station as an executive chef, engaged in wrestling horseplay with co-workers during office meetings concerning matters related to their employment. During the horseplay, Palardy was placed in at least one headlock by a co-worker. All witnesses agree that the altercation was not malicious, and Palardy did not report any incident to his employer that day. Following the horseplay, Palardy was sore, had headaches, and, on at least one occasion, experienced shortness of breath. In the morning on Monday, September 19, 2011, Palardy suffered a stroke apparently caused by a dissection of his right internal carotid artery. Palardy subsequently filed a claim for worker’s compensation, which Respondent York Risk Services denied pending further investigation. Following York’s investigation, York again denied Palardy’s claim. Palardy appealed both denials to the Nevada Department of Administration Hearings Division. The parties agreed to consolidate the appeals and to bypass the hearing officer. The Appeals Officer concluded that Palardy’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment and was, therefore, compensable. On Sunset Station and York’s petition for judicial review, the district court reversed the Appeals Officer’s decision on the ground that “there is insufficient evidence to support the Appeals Officer’s Decision that [Palardy’s] condition resulted from horseplay at work.”

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the district court erred by reversing the Appeals Officer’s conclusion that there is a causal connection between the horseplay and Appellant’s stroke that is supported by substantial evidence; and (2) Whether the district court erred by reversing the Appeals Officer’s conclusion that Palardy’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.

Las Vegas Paving Corporation vs. Coleman
Docket Number: 66242
William S. Boyd School of Law - UNLV - 10:30 a.m. - Gibbons/Tao/Silver

Appellants Las Vegas Paving and Bradley Schneider (collectively, "LVP") appeal the district court's grant of Respondent Jamar Coleman's motion for a new trial. Coleman was injured as a result of a hit-and-run collision when, while riding his bicycle, he was struck by a tractor-trailer truck. Eyewitness testimony suggested the involvement of LVP. LVP defended based upon GPS data and driver testimony that it could not have been involved in the subject collision. The jury returned a verdict for LVP; the district court granted Coleman's motion for a new trial.

ISSUES:

(1) Whether the district court correctly found that it had abused its discretion in allowing the testimony of LVP's rebuttal expert Brian Jones; (2) Whether the district court correctly found that it had abused its discretion by instructing the jury with regard to certain traffic laws in the negligence per se jury instruction; (3) Whether the district court correctly found that it had abused its discretion in refusing to give a rebuttable presumption jury instruction; and (4) Whether the district court correctly found that misconduct had affected Coleman's ability to have a fair trial.

Disclaimer:

This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Court of Appeals. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties.