Commission upholds hearing officer in poker‑dealer appeal; license denial sustained

The Nevada Gaming Commission sustained the hearing master’s decision on Thursday and denied an appeal by a former Aria poker-room dealer who contested disciplinary findings that she took tips from a community pot before hands were concluded.

The dealer, identified in the hearing record as Jian Hu, told the commission she believed the surveillance footage presented at the administrative hearing was inaccurate and that she had been singled out by casino staff. Hu argued the gaming-control investigators relied on hearsay and mischaracterized her statements during the agency interview. She requested that the commission vacate the disciplinary decision, expunge any record and preserve all evidence for further investigation of casino and investigative procedures.

Commissioners declined to overturn the hearing master’s findings. In discussion they noted the scope of review on appeal is limited: the commission reviews the administrative record and the hearing master’s factual findings and does not reweigh testimony or accept new evidence outside the record. Commissioners said the hearing record — including the surveillance excerpts the hearing master relied upon and testimony by the casino manager who identified the dealer in the footage — supported the hearing master’s credibility determinations.

Commissioner remarks at the meeting emphasized deference to the hearing officer’s credibility judgments and the Commission’s limited role as an appellate fact‑finder in agency matters. The commission’s vote to sustain the objection was unanimous.

The commission explained the regulatory next steps to Hu: she may seek judicial review in district court under the state’s administrative‑review statutes, and the commission noted the record and associated evidence will be retained per agency rules; the staff will notify Hu in writing of the evidence-retention period. The commission also noted that Hu may petition the board for reconsideration or reapplication after the time period set by agency rules (the commission recorded that a petition may be filed 12 months after the decision).

The hearing and appeal included detailed argument about surveillance clip timing, differences among multiple video snippets, and whether management or agents followed internal procedures when they identified and interviewed the dealer. The commission did not find reversible error in the hearing master’s handling of those matters, and the agency’s decision remains in effect.