to apply equitable principles if it is supported by substantial evidence”). Although the appeals officer noted that Dickinson’s cervical spine was “subject to differential and rule out diagnostic enquiry or treated incidental to the industrial residuals, [but was] never [an] accepted body part[ ],” the record contains no indication that the medical evaluations and treatment were so limited. Accordingly, while treating a nonaccepted condition for the noted reasons is not necessarily improper, it nonetheless appears that Dickinson might have reasonably relied on the administrator’s conduct as indicative of acceptance, invoking principles of equity. 17 NRS 616C. 150(1). 18 NRS 6160.175(1). 19 NRS 616C.160. 20 See Imperial Palace v. Dawson, 102 Nev. 88, 90-91, 715 P.2d 1318, 1320 (1986) (<HOLDING>). 21 NRS 233B.125. 22 State, Bd. Psychological
holding that an injury is not within the scope of employment after the employee has left work unless the injury was caused by the employers negligence holding that if an injury is unexpected from the workers point of view it qualifies as an injury by accident holding ec is not responsible for medical treatment required independently by the subsequent noncompensable injury when the removal of a hindrance to recovery from the compensable injury is merely an incidental effect of such treatment recognizing that a workers compensation insurer is responsible for covering any injury caused by the treatment of an industrial injury holding that when an employee suffers an injury from an unexplained fall while the employee is on the job and performing the duties of his employment that injury is eligible for compensation under the workers compensation act