Tuesday, September 15, 2020-Carson City-J. Parraguire, J. Hardesty, and J. Cadish
TAYLOR VS. TRUCKEE MEADOWS FIRE PROT. DIST.
Docket Number: 78971
Carson City - 10:00 A.M. - Northern Panel
Following an employee’s work-related injury, the employer offered temporary light duty employment to the employee. The employee rejected the offer because he claimed the employer had temporary modified employment in his pre-injury position suitable for his physical limitations available for him, despite the light duty employment offer providing the employee with the same pay and benefits, and requiring fewer working hours and a shorter commute to work.
ISSUES:
The issue on appeal is whether the light duty employment offer was reasonable and valid pursuant to NRS 616C.475 (8) and NAC 616C.586 (2) (a).
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do
SILVERWING DEV. VS. NEV. STATE CONTRACTORS BD.
Docket Number: 79134
Carson City - 10:30 A.M. - Northern Panel
NRS 624.220(2) requires the Nevada State Contractors Board (the Board) to impose a monetary license limit on the amount a subcontractor can bid on a particular project for a contractor. The limit is calculated with respect to “one or more construction contracts on a single construction site or subdivision site for a single client.” In turn, NRS 624.3015(3) prohibits a general contractor from hiring a subcontractor to perform work in excess of its license limit. The Board filed a complaint against appellant Silverwing Development and its owner, appellant J. Carter Witt (collectively Silverwing), alleging that Silverwing had improperly entered into contracts with subcontractors that exceeded the subcontractors’ license limits. A hearing officer determined that “subdivision site” in NRS 624.220(2) refers to the general location of a subdivision, rather than a particular site within a subdivision, such that the multiple contracts that Silverwing entered into with each subcontractor for work within a subdivision should be added together to determine whether the subcontractors’ monetary limit had been exceeded. The hearing officer consequently sustained the Board’s complaint and fined Silverwing. Silverwing petitioned for judicial review, which was denied.
ISSUES:
Silverwing now appeals, arguing (1) NRS 624.220(2) is unconstitutionally vague; (2) NRS 624.220(2) violates its equal-protection rights; and (3) even if a “subdivision site” is an entire “subdivision,” its construction projects were not “subdivisions.”
Disclaimer:
This synopsis is intended to provide only general information about this case before the Nevada Supreme Court. It is not intended to be all-inclusive or reflect all positions of the parties. To access the documents that have been filed in this matter, type the docket number into the court’s case search page: https://caseinfo.nvsupremecourt.us/public/caseSearch.do