Nev. Corrections Officer Can’t Escape Exposure Requirement for Presumption Purposes

Case File

A Nevada presumption did not create a standalone category of compensable lung disease that would eliminate a corrections officer's need to show exposure, according to the state's top court. Simply Research subscribers have access to the full text of the case.

Case

Holguin v. City of Henderson, No. 89345 (Nev. 11/13/25)

What Happened?

A city correctional officer filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits based on a disabling lung disease after contracting COVID-19 from a coworker. An appeals officer affirmed the denial of his claim, concluding that although he was entitled to a presumption that his lung disease arose out of and in the course of his employment, the officer did not show that his lung disease was caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or other noxious gases, as required by Nevada law.

The district court denied judicial review, prompting the officer to appeal to the Nevada Supreme Court, arguing that he did not need to satisfy the

Rule of Law

Nevada law classifies disabling lung diseases in firefighters, arson investigators, or police officers as compensable occupational diseases when they result from an exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or any other noxious gases, arising out of and in the course of employment.

Additionally, Nevada law entitles claimants to a conclusive presumption that their lung disease has arisen out of and in the course of employment if they worked full time and continuously in one of those capacities for two or more years before the date of disablement.

What the Nevada Supreme Court Said

Agreeing with the appeals officer and the district court, the Nevada Supreme Court held that the two provisions of law in question could not be separated.

"A plain reading of [the statute] supports the appeals officer's conclusion that a claimant must satisfy both causal components of [the statute] to establish a lung-disease claim for workers' compensation," the Nevada Supreme Court wrote.

While the officer had a disabling lung disease and worked full time and continuously as a correctional officer for more than two years, thus entitling him to a conclusive presumption that his COVID-19 infection arose out of and in the course of his employment, he did not satisfy the requirement to show that his lung disease was caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or other noxious gases.

Verdict: The Nevada Supreme Court affirmed the order denying the officer's petition for judicial review.

Takeaway

Nevada's presumption on lung diseases for firefighter's and law enforcement officer includes an exposure requirement that must be applied in tandem with each other.

Share This Article: