QUEEN COLLINS v. CLARK COUNTY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND SIERRA NEVADA ADMINISTRATORS (2025)

ORDER OF AFFIRMANCE

Queen Collins appeals from a district court order dismissing a petition for judicial review in a workers’ compensation matter. Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark County; Eric Johnson, Judge.

Kaydriana Rhodes was a transportation aid for respondent Clark County School District (CCSD) and was injured during the course and scope of her employment in 2014. Her claim for workers’ compensation benefits was initially accepted, and she was provided with medical care. In 2018, Rhodes passed away due to complications from nonindustrial gastric cancer. Rhodes’ mother, appellant Queen Collins, subsequently sought to recover benefits on behalf of Rhodes’ estate. CCSD's third-party administrator, respondent Sierra Nevada Administrators, denied the request and, ultimately, an appeals officer determined that the claim closure was proper, Rhodes received all warranted benefits, and her estate was not entitled to additional benefits in April 2022.

Collins subsequently filed a petition for judicial review in May 2022, which was denied by the district court. Collins did not appeal that denial, and instead filed an untimely motion to reconsider, which the district court denied.

In May 2024, Collins filed a second petition for judicial review from the appeals officer's April 2022 order. She did not serve the attorney general or the office of the administrative head of the Department of Administration. Respondents moved to dismiss the petition, and Collins did not file an opposition.

The district court thereafter entered an order granting respondents’ motion to dismiss setting forth several bases for its decision. First, the court granted the motion pursuant to EDCR 2.20(e) and EDCR 2.23(c) based on Collins’ failure to file an opposition. Next, the court concluded that dismissal was warranted because Collins had previously filed a petition for judicial review of the appeals officer's order in May 2022, which had already been ruled upon and which Collins failed to appeal.

The district court also concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the second petition based on Collins’ failure to serve the office of the administrative head of the Department of Administration or the attorney general, as required by NRS 233B.130(2)(c). Finally, the court concluded dismissal was warranted because Collins filed the second petition in May 2024, more than 30 days after the appeals officer's April 2022 decision, in contravention of NRS 233B.130(2)(d) (requiring petitions for judicial review to be filed within 30 days after service of the final agency decision). This appeal followed.

We review an order granting a motion to dismiss a petition for judicial review as unopposed for an abuse of discretion. See State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles v. Moss, 106 Nev. 866, 868, 802 P.2d 627, 628 (1990) (reviewing a district court order that dismissed a petition for judicial review based on similar language contained in a prior version of EDCR 2.20(e) for an abuse of discretion). Moreover. “NRS 233B.130(2)(c)(1)’s service requirement is mandatory and jurisdictional.” Heat & Frost Insulators & Allied Workers Loc. 16 v. Lab. Comm'r, 134 Nev. 1, 5, 408 P.3d 156, 160 (2018). In addition, a petition for judicial review must “[b]e filed within 30 days of after service of the final decision of the agency.” NRS 233B.130(2)(d); see also Washoe Cnty. v. Otto, 128 Nev. 424, 434-35, 282 P.3d 719, 727 (2012) (holding that the district court never obtains jurisdiction over an appeal from an administrative decision if the petitioner fails to comply with NRS 233B.130(2)(d)).

On appeal, Collins primarily challenges the closure of Rhodes’ claim. However, she fails to address the bases upon which the district court relied in dismissing her petition for judicial review. Because Collins has failed to challenge any of the various grounds on which the district court dismissed her petition, Collins has forfeited any arguments related to the same. See Powell v. Liberty Mut. Fire Ins. Co., 127 Nev. 156, 161, n.3, 252 P.3d 668, 672 n.3 (2011) (providing that arguments not raised on appeal are deemed forfeited); see also Hung v. Genting Berhad, 138 Nev. 547, 547-48, 513 P.3d 1285, 1286 (Ct. App. 2022) (stating that, when a district court resolves a case on multiple grounds and the appellant fails to challenge each alternative ground on appeal, those challenges are forfeited, “thereby foreclosing [the] appeal as it concerns the district court's ․ ruling”). Therefore, we conclude Collins fails to demonstrate the district court abused its discretion by denying the petition for judicial review. See State, Dep't of Motor Vehicles, 106 Nev. at 868, 802 P.2d at 628.

Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.

Bulla, C.J.

Gibbons, J.

Westbrook, J.