Nevada Supreme Court Rules Overtime Counts as 'Full Wages' in Workers Comp Reopening Fight

Brian Wolfgram worked as a firefighter for the City of Henderson and, like many first responders, regularly supplemented his base salary with overtime shifts. Before his injury, overtime was a consistent and predictable part of his income, accounting for roughly 15 percent of what he earned.

Wolfgram suffered an occupational injury to his hands and elbows. His doctor placed him on light-duty restrictions for just over two weeks. During that stretch, the City paid his base salary in full but barred him from working any overtime. When the claim closed on January 26, 2015, no one had formally addressed the lost overtime.

Nearly two years later, Wolfgram sought to reopen the claim as his medical condition resurfaced. The City and its insurer, CCMSI, pushed back. Their argument was that he had earned his 'full wages' while on light duty because the City paid every dollar of his base pay. Under NRS 616C.400(1), an employee can only reopen a claim beyond the standard one-year window if the original injury incapacitated him from earning full wages for the statutory minimum period.

Jason Mills of Greenman Goldberg Raby and Martinez argued that full wages could not be read to mean base pay alone for a worker whose normal earnings routinely included overtime. A workers' compensation appeals officer agreed. The district court denied the City's petition for judicial review.

On December 23, 2021, the Nevada Supreme Court affirmed, issuing a published opinion under citation 501 P.3d 422. The court held that the term 'full wages' in NRS 616C.400(1) encompasses overtime pay, not just base salary. Because Wolfgram had been prohibited from earning overtime he would otherwise have worked, he was incapacitated from earning his full wages during the light-duty period. That finding gave him lifetime reopening rights under NRS 616C.390(1).

The decision set precedent that subsequently applied in City of Henderson v. Law (Nev. Ct. App. 2022), where the Court of Appeals extended the same logic to another injured City of Henderson employee under materially identical facts.