Was Corrections Officer Entitled to Presumption that his COVID-19 Was Compensable?

What Do You Think?

Certain first responders filing a claim for a lung injury are entitled to the benefit of the doubt in some respects. For instance, there is often a presumption that their injury is work-related. The Nevada Supreme Court recently clarified how far that presumption goes in a case involving a correctional officer who ended up a prisoner of COVID-19.

Simply Research users have access to the full text of this case ... and more!

The claimant had been working for the City of Henderson for more than two years when he contracted the virus from a coworker. He filed a workers' compensation claim based on a disabling occupational lung disease. 

Two statutory provisions potentially applied to his claim

• NRS 617.455(1). This provision classifies disabling lung diseases in firefighters, arson investigators, or police officers (including correctional 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 the employment."  

• NRS 617.455(5). This provision entitles claimants to a conclusive presumption that their lung disease has arisen out of and in the course of the employment if they worked full time and continuously in one of those two positions for two or more years before the date of disablement.

The officer asserted that because he qualified for the presumption that his disease arose out of and in the course of employment, he was entitled to benefits. Essentially, the two statutory provisions, he argued, created two distinct types of claims; he did not have to meet both requirements. His claim was denied and his appeal eventually reached the Nevada Supreme Court.

Was the officer entitled to workers’ compensation benefits?

A. Yes. He qualified for the presumption that his lung disease claim was compensable.

B. No. He only met one of the two requirements for a successful disabling lung disease claim.

If you selected B, you agreed with the court in Holguin v. City of Henderson, No. No. 89345 (Nev. 11/23/25), which affirmed the denial of the claim.

The two statutory provisions do not create two classes of claimants, the court stated. Instead, a claim for a disabling lung condition has two components that a claimant has to meet. The claimant has to show: 

1. That he has a disabling lung condition caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or any other noxious gases; and
2. That the injury occurred in the course and scope of employment.

The officer was entitled to the presumption that he met the second element of his claim. “He did not, however, satisfy the other component of subsection 1, which required showing that his lung disease was caused by exposure to heat, smoke, fumes, tear gas, or other noxious gases,” the court said.

Share This Article: