interpreted NRS 616C.025(1) Barrick argues that the appeals officer erred in ruling that filing either a notice of injury or a claim for compensation satisfies NRS 6160.025(1). Instead, Barrick contends that NRS 6160.025(1) requires the filing of both a notice of injury, pursuant to NRS 6160.015(1), and a claim for compensation, pursuant to NRS 6160.020(1). Thus, if an employee fails to file either a notice of injury or a claim for compensation, the employee is, at least presumptively, barred from receiving benefits. We agree. The construction of a statute is a question of law subject to de novo review. See State, Dep’t of Mtr. Vehicles v. Lovett, 110 Nev. 473, 476, 874 P.2d 1247, 1249 (1994); see also American Int’l Vacations v. MacBride, 99 Nev. 324, 326, 661 P.2d 1301, 1302 (1983) (<HOLDING>). Additionally, in interpreting statutes,
holding that this court may independently review the administrative construction of a statute holding that there is no right to habeas review of administrative evidentiary determinations before a district court where direct review of the administrative proceedings is available in the appellate courts recognizing that this courts construction of a statute becomes as much apart of the statute as the words of the statute itself and that change is a matter that addresses itself to the general assembly not this court holding that in its review of the irs exercise of discretion the court is limited to a review of the administrative record holding that review of the construction of a sentencing statute is de novo