NRS 617.358

Compensation prohibited unless preponderance of evidence establishes that disease arose out of and in course of employment; rebuttable presumption if notice of disease is filed after termination of employment; exceptions

Known as the Nevada Occupational Diseases Act

The act spans §§ 617–617 (80 sections).

Applied in 8 court decisions — leading case Gallagher v. City of Las Vegas (1998)

Most recently applied in CCMSI v. ODELL (January 2025)

(Added to NRS by 1993, 764; A 2009, 546)

How often courts cite this section

citing decisions per year

Court decisions citing this, by year. The dip in the last several years is a data-coverage gap, not a real trend — our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so recent citations are undercounted.

1. An employee or the dependents of the employee are not entitled to receive compensation pursuant to the provisions of this chapter unless the employee or the dependents of the employee establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the employee’s occupational disease arose out of and in the course of his or her employment.

2. If the employee files a notice of an occupational disease pursuant to NRS 617.342 after his or her employment has been terminated for any reason, there is a rebuttable presumption that the occupational disease did not arise out of and in the course of his or her employment.

3. The provisions of this section do not apply to any claim filed for an occupational disease described in NRS 617.453, 617.455, 617.457, 617.485 or 617.487.

Official source: Nevada Legislature. Reproduced from public-domain Nevada statutes; confirm against the official source for the current text. Not legal advice.