Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS
Nevada Supreme Court
188 P.3d 1084 (2008)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Danny Vredenburg worked as a bartender for the hotel and casino Flamingo Hilton-Laughlin (Flamingo) (defendant). Vredenburg suffered a compensable injury to his back while working at Flamingo. Vredenburg’s injury caused severe back pain that was not eased by surgery, pain medication, or pain-management therapy. Vredenburg began taking strong pain medication and antidepressants, and he eventually had a morphine pump surgically implanted into his spine. However, these additional measures also failed to relieve Vredenburg’s pain. Vredenburg experienced extreme difficulty walking, he became socially withdrawn, he stopped eating, his physical appearance changed, and his self-esteem decreased. Vredenburg’s doctor diagnosed Vredenburg’s pain as intractable and noted that the pain had caused Vredenburg to suffer a psychological disturbance. The doctor found that Vredenburg was unfit to work and recommended that Vredenburg claim permanent disability status. The next month, Vredenburg wrote several suicide notes and called a friend to say that he could no longer deal with his pain. Vredenburg then committed suicide. A doctor opined that Vredenburg had committed suicide as a result of his chronic pain. Vredenburg’s spouse (plaintiff) filed a claim for workers’-compensation death benefits against Flamingo, asserting that Vredenburg had committed suicide due to his pain from his workplace injury. Flamingo’s insurance administrator, Sedgwick CMS (defendant) denied the claim. A hearing officer and appeals officer both affirmed the denial, and a state district court denied Vredenburg’s petition for judicial review. Vredenburg appealed to the Nevada Supreme Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Parraguirre, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 790,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,200 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.