[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6569443,"mediaKeyId","3183538-bd55f0c8ed504708d4a32f8c324e563a","parentId",3183538,"title","Stakeholders back bill to set formula for third‑party recoveries in workers’ compensation cases after Nevada court defers to legislature","audioSeconds",971,"startMs",8347000,"endMs",9318000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183538-bd55f0c8ed504708d4a32f8c324e563a&start=8347&end=9318","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183538-bd55f0c8ed504708d4a32f8c324e563a/thumbnail_8347000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6569443/Nevada/Stakeholders-back-bill-to-set-formula-for-thirdparty-recoveries-in-workers-compensation-cases-after-Nevada-court-defers-to-legislature","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569443-89b7e48bc89072561df14b24e803b877/orig.mp4?Expires=1773677292&Signature=M5RmpTUni-zm1q6KKbeUGiKu8gJLkuNijNp0Z5P2dfvq8WVerUclVrVC910ymYthSrB3jURXW6425SJxJJhrr0SYpAPAy4xeoRExlvEUJdBk1D4WuzB~cAbOuj2hgfnB~N5P7J~JqJpXrfLmZquQdhVfscW7TbTPwu6iHUKTB1nxNM8oWk~3TmXZuSc5vy1CT~0SyNMrWNkTlsFLvTx1K4f7pRBUJoAu0vZC2dBgc7sSUW60yeLkJKJYRJAY8-lIvIQOF7qBScCmJe9IVmhC~dNL5fMUTAWoNCs9aP9x7MuceQdLCo54edNKcUKA21UkK6nottnWgLNPohHlImcGtg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Nevada Legislature","date","2025-05-02T21:46:11.8Z","article","Senate Bill 258, which revises provisions related to industrial insurance (workers' compensation), received a broadly supported hearing in the Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee where the sponsor and multiple stakeholder groups described the measure as a negotiated fix to uncertainty created by a recent Nevada Supreme Court decision.

Problem and history: Lisonbee Brazier, testifying for the Nevada Justice Association, explained the issue: when an employee is injured on the job and a third party is at fault (for example, a driver who hits a police officer at the roadside), the worker’s compensation carrier may pay benefits while the injured worker pursues a tort claim against that third party. The question is how much of any tort recovery should go to the carrier to reimburse the benefits it paid. Brazier said Nevada courts had used a multi‑factor formula derived from a 1986 decision known in the hearing as Breen, but that the Nevada Supreme Court’s recent Vasquez decision told the parties this is a legislative question and declined to apply a single uniform rule.

What SB 258 does: Jason Mills, who explained the bill’s text, said the statute creates a predictable allocation: if a third‑party recovery is insufficient to fully reimburse the industrial insurer, the insurer may recover up to one‑third of the claimant’s tort recovery. The bill provides that the parties equally share litigation costs of the recovery (procurement costs), subject to judicial review if costs are disputed. The bill also addresses future reopening and offsets so that if a workers’ comp claim later reopens, indemnity and medical benefits would be reduced by one‑third until the claimant’s net tort recovery has been offset.

Support from broad stakeholders: Representatives from labor (Laborers Local 169, Teamsters local), employers (Nevada Resort Association, Nevada Trucking Association, franchise auto dealers), self‑insured groups and insurer managers (ProGroup, Nevada Self Insured Association, Nevada Alternative Solutions) testified in support, thanking the bill sponsor, Senator Rochelle Winn, and noting the bill was the product of stakeholder negotiations. Supporters said the bill replaces legal uncertainty with predictability for injured workers, employers and insurers.

Opposition and neutrality: No organized opposition callers were recorded during the hearing. Several stakeholder groups and insurers framed testimony as support or neutral technical input, and the sponsor closed the hearing with the committee’s appreciation for the consensus‑driven drafting.

Next steps: The committee heard support testimony and no opposition during the meeting; no committee vote was recorded at this hearing.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","5/2/2025 - Assembly Committee on Commerce and Labor","oneSentenceSummary","Senate Bill 258 would set a statutory method for dividing third‑party tort recoveries when workers’ compensation benefits have been paid, establishing predictability after the Nevada Supreme Court declined to craft a uniform rule and left the matter to the legislature.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature NV, Nevada","taxId",78440,"location","Nevada","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6569448,"Committee hears bill to shield Nevada providers and patients from out‑of‑state enforcement on gender‑affirming care",5790,2231000,8021000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183538-bd55f0c8ed504708d4a32f8c324e563a&start=2231&end=8021","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183538-bd55f0c8ed504708d4a32f8c324e563a/thumbnail_2231000.jpg","/articles/6569448/Nevada/Committee-hears-bill-to-shield-Nevada-providers-and-patients-from-outofstate-enforcement-on-genderaffirming-care","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569448-36b4a9efd9cae9e63fd6af4068417db8/orig.mp4?Expires=1773677292&Signature=KFzseUrzu7kn~4R11sd5qTESqxA~2v3piXIPpFRSzeGPCdnnZi5XVnfF6MLstwcHQML0FhRw~-b-VwExveFgvC-HUkS7g3u7~YxMLWHyhZqREoTJDqVh76HnlKfRoPRl9r~2GV0YUQeSciu5hWafKBz729t1fRCDlfOv6YhbNJpP5HplyqC0n8fzL55i0VtnMmitogHNMTlUtnvicQ7smb-Z7VfgW23vHoG8obyFnVPhsrr-5F8amdVBTgJUexIAfOGyotFQBgDl1z9mwjZyajd4JwKRWz8SgjF5ciC10HwjLOlcJzC09EDLfAE~kCdelybySbdCoDzwZ1aMl1vZbg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee held a hearing on Senate Bill 171, which its sponsor described as a “shield law” to protect patients and Nevada‑licensed providers who deliver medically necessary gender‑affirming health care from enforcement actions and disciplinary consequences initiated by other states.

Sponsor and scope: The sponsor introduced himself for the record as James Orange Shaw and identified the bill’s intent to protect providers and patients from cross‑jurisdictional legal action when the care provided in Nevada is lawful in Nevada. Shaw summarized the bill's major provisions: licensing boards may not discipline a licensee solely for providing or assisting in medically necessary gender‑affirming care when that care was provided with parental consent (except where Nevada law otherwise allows a minor to consent); the governor is prohibited from surrendering a person to another state for conduct involving medically necessary gender‑affirming care unless it is also a crime in Nevada; executive agencies may not assist an out‑of‑state investigation related to such care except in limited circumstances; and licensing boards must study reciprocity to improve access to providers.

Why proponents say it matters: Supporters argued that a growing number of states have criminalized or sanctioned providers for gender‑affirming care, creating a “chilling effect” and worsening Nevada’s provider shortages. Rob Phoenix, a Las Vegas advanced practice registered nurse who provides gender‑affirming care, said the measure would protect providers who also deliver primary care to the same patients. Phoenix described cases around the country where out‑of‑state attempts to access records or discipline providers have raised concern, and he and other witnesses said the bill is modeled in part on statutes Nevada enacted to protect reproductive‑health providers.

Medical and advocacy testimony: Dozens of medical and advocacy organizations — including the Nevada Psychiatric Association, Nevada Primary Care Association (representing federally qualified health centers), the Nevada Women's Lobby, Planned Parenthood Votes Nevada, the ACLU of Nevada and Silver State Equality — testified in support. Several clinicians said that gender‑affirming care is medically necessary for some patients and cited peer‑reviewed literature and professional guidelines (Endocrine Society, WPATH) as supporting evidence. One witness cited an estimate that the protections would cover more than 77,000 licensed healthcare professionals in Nevada.

Opposition and legal concerns: Opponents, including Nevada Families for Freedom, the Nevada Republican Party and several callers who identified as parents or representatives of conservative groups, said the bill would impede oversight of providers, limit the governor's ability to cooperate on extradition and could allow practitioners accused of misconduct elsewhere to practice in Nevada without accountability. Some callers cited international reviews and reports they said raised concerns about pediatric gender‑affirming interventions. Speakers in opposition called for greater safeguards for minors and said the governor’s authority should not be limited.

Committee process and next steps: The bill drew extensive testimony from both supporters and opponents and questions from committee members focusing on reciprocity, licensing compacts and whether the bill could affect Nevada’s obligations under interstate compacts. Sponsor Shaw and witnesses said the bill seeks to preserve Nevada's authority to regulate care within the state while refusing to aid enforcement actions by other states that would criminalize care lawful here. No committee vote was recorded at this hearing; the committee closed the hearing on SB 171 later in the session.

Source material: Testimony and questions recorded in the committee hearing included statements by the sponsor, medical practitioners and representatives from advocacy groups and professional associations. The hearing record shows proponent organizations and many individual callers supporting the shield law; opposition came from parent groups, several political organizations and callers who raised legal and safety objections.","The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee heard Senate Bill 171, a proposed shield law intended to prevent Nevada licensing boards, state agencies and the governor from cooperating with out‑of‑state efforts to discipline, prosecute or extradite providers or patients for gender‑affirming health care that is lawful in Nevada.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":80,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6569452,"Nevada committee hears bill to require ‘all‑in’ ticket pricing, clearer refunds and penalties for violations",1148,1083000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3183538-bd55f0c8ed504708d4a32f8c324e563a&start=1083&end=2231","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3183538-bd55f0c8ed504708d4a32f8c324e563a/thumbnail_1083000.jpg","/articles/6569452/Nevada/Nevada-committee-hears-bill-to-require-allin-ticket-pricing-clearer-refunds-and-penalties-for-violations","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6569452-c3ee4d8467eb5d5fe4a79f28323c77a7/orig.mp4?Expires=1773677292&Signature=KmDUysSWzv~wCg5ixU5ZpLGQy3do14Qf6fFnY8u3k5DJFoCrlUYOiPZAxc3mbAHboqmZ3eagshstheewUdsg5IQ8My-oXjWDz7StReRiXQmCk6IdQyowsXATR01PnrcZvyNRKPdV-ZQEJSJEcQD3SKryBW3Vpg9mxZ2iECF9CszctNvX9loWhDnBoApi1tbaWzNtL8TGFD65fLmC-6ep1rPcT4EUJvuMktvAD7-79TnEiy5-bJ7NVoKbJefNuuATQzQzGeNnhlVRxuhYR6E6mVP9BhOluAqPPK9~E-n5qUSFObofOF3XlkeHKiUteHazS7mloNrgvY8uADDA83yYNw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 338 on the sale of tickets to live entertainment events and related consumer protections, including requiring ticket sellers to display the total price up front and to provide clearer refunds for canceled or rescheduled events. The sponsor, Senator Julie Pizzina, who represents Senate District 12 in Clark County, told the committee the measure has three parts: incorporate the Federal Trade Commission pricing rule into state law, require transparent refund policies and create civil and criminal penalties to enforce the rules.

Why it matters: Consumers routinely encounter “drip pricing” online, where an advertised ticket price increases as fees are added during checkout. Pizzina said the bill mirrors an FTC trade regulation rule that will require ticket providers to disclose the total price of a ticket — including mandatory fees — so buyers see “the full cost they'll have to pay for the ticket right from the start.” Proponents said the change would restore price transparency that used to be common with in‑person purchases.

Proponents and testimony: Pizzina introduced the bill and called witnesses from the live‑entertainment and ticketing industries to support it. Myron Martin, chief executive officer of The Smith Center in Las Vegas, said the center already posts “all‑in pricing” on the first search screen and urged wider adoption. David Goldwater, representing the Nevada Ticket Brokers Association, said consistent, transparent pricing helps legitimate resellers and rebuilds consumer trust. Former Senator Mike Schneider, Myron Martin and Alfredo Alonso (testifying for UFC, the Vegas Golden Knights and the Oakland/A's interests) all described past problems with resellers and supported updating statutes to match the FTC rule, which Pizzina said is expected to take effect May 12.

Refunds and enforcement: Pizzina told the committee that refunds for canceled events are often inconsistent and sometimes exclude fees. The bill would require clearer refund policies from ticket providers and assign refund responsibility to ticket providers rather than relying solely on event organizers. It also would add civil and criminal penalties, and explicitly give the Nevada attorney general’s Bureau of Consumer Protection authority to enforce the provisions, Pizzina said.

Public testimony: Support came from representatives of the Nevada Resort Association and individual consumers, including remote callers who praised the bill for consumer protection. Burning Man's representative said earlier concerns had been addressed and registered neutral support after amendments. No opposition callers were recorded during the hearing.

What the bill does not yet decide: The committee held a hearing; no committee vote or final action was recorded for SB 338 during this meeting.

Outlook: Proponents said the combination of state statute and the new FTC rule would reduce surprise fees for buyers, streamline refund practices and create enforcement mechanisms to pursue bad actors in both primary and resale ticket markets. The committee closed the hearing on SB 338 and proceeded to other agenda items.","The Assembly Commerce and Labor Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 338 on the sale of tickets to live entertainment events and related consumer protections, including requiring ticket sellers to display the total price up front and to provide clearer refunds for canceled or rescheduled events.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Stakeholders back bill to set formula for third‑party recoveries in workers’ compensation cases after Nevada court defers to legislature

Committee hears bill to shield Nevada providers and patients from out‑of‑state enforcement on gender‑affirming care

Nevada committee hears bill to require ‘all‑in’ ticket pricing, clearer refunds and penalties for violations