nor does the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation make reference to the claim. While the VWCA is the exclusive method for securing monetary recoveries for damages resulting from work-related injuries, the Act is silent with regard to the question of injunctive relief against occupational hazards. That is, the VWCA contains no provision making it the exclusive method of protecting a worker against an occupational hazard. For this reason, the court’s finding that the VWCA exclusivity provision bars Nelson’s action in tort for damages is not applicable to Nelson’s claim for injunctive relief. This finding is in accord with decisions interpreting other state worker’s compensation acts worded similarly to the VWCA. See Conway v. Circus Circus Casinos, Inc., 8 P.3d 837, 841 (2000) (<HOLDING>); Shimp v. New Jersey Bell Tel. Co., 145
holding that eleventh amendment does not bar federal suit against state official for prospective injunctive relief holding that the clayton acts provisions on injunctive relief applied to pending cases holding that the nevada industrial insurance acts exclusive remedy provision did not bar an employees claims for injunctive relief holding that liquidated damages provision did not provide adequate remedy at law or prevent injunctive relief holding that judicial immunity was not a bar to awards of attorneys fees and costs or to demands for injunctive relief