Industrial Insurance Act serves to strike a balance between the employer/insurer and the employee with respect to handling of workers’ compensation claims. However, that purpose is not served where, as here, the aggrieved party is not the injured employee, but is instead the employer asserting violations outside the Act. Plaintiff is an employer bringing an action under the Unfair Insurance Practice Act for alleged failure to provide insurance coverage. Although Plaintiffs action is related to Miller’s on-the-job injury and subsequent workers’ compensation claim, the action does not specifically concern the administration of Miller’s claim, as Plaintiff already has compensated Miller for his injuries. See Dillard Dep’t Stores, Inc. v. Beckwith, 115 Nev. 372, 989 P.2d 882, 885 (1999) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, precluding Plaintiff from bringing
holding that employee must prove that the sole reason for their discharge was their filing of a workers compensation claim to prevail on a claim of wrongful discharge under marylands workers compensation act holding  616d030 did not preclude the plaintiff from bringing a tortious discharge action for filing a workers compensation claim because the statutory scheme applies only to the administration of the act holding that because maryland law expressly creates right to file workers compensation claim action exists for wrongful discharge for termination based solely on the filing of a workers compensation claim recognizing a tort action when employee was dismissed for filing a workers compensation claim holding  616d030 barred employees actions where employees sued the state industrial insurance system alleging bad faith administration of their workers compensation claims