insurer pursuant to an earlier version of NRS 616C.025(2). We noted in Bally’s that the statute gives “broad discretionary powers to employers as to whether they should accept or reject employees’ excuses for failing to comply.” Id. at 929-30 n.4, 948 P.2d at 1203 n.4. Nonetheless, we stated that this “does not, mean, however, that the insurer’s decision is inviolate.” Id. Thus, the insurer’s decision to deny an excuse is reviewable de novo by an administrative officer. See id. Because it was unclear from the record whether the insurer actually considered the employee’s excuse, we remanded the matter to the insurer for a reconsideration of the employee’s excuse. See id. at 929, 948 P.2d at 1203; see also Bullock v. Pinnacle Risk Mgmt., 113 Nev. 1385, 1389, 951 P.2d 1036, 1039 (1997) (<HOLDING>). Essentially, Barrick argues that under
holding insureds firstoccurring immaterial breach of them insurance policy did not excuse insurer from its obligation to perform under the contract holding that a prima facie case of retaliation requires a causal link between the employees protected activity and the employers adverse employment action holding that a claim against an insurer for vexatious refusal to pay cannot be maintained where the court finds that the insurer has no duty to defend under the policy holding that employers insurer who provided workers compensation benefits to employee but did not consent to employees settlement with thirdparty tortfeasor may maintain an action for payments that become payable in the future holding that ballys requires remanding to the employers insurer to consider the employees excuse under nrs 616c0252