Derek Burnett worked in Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department (LVMPD)’s traffic division and was assigned a department-issued motorcycle that he took home and was required to park in a locked garage. LVMPD required Burnett to carry equipment including a flashlight, firearm, duty belt, body armor, taser, and knife. Although LVMPD provided some equipment, officers were required to provide their own flashlight, firearm, and footwear. Burnett was also required to check his equipment daily and, because he was not assigned a locker, gear up at home before his shift.
In April 2024, Burnett was preparing for work when he changed the battery in his flashlight and turned it on to verify that it was working. The flashlight exploded in his right hand, causing injuries. Burnett’s worker’s compensation claim was initially denied, based on a conclusion that his injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment because he was hurt at home by a flashlight he had purchased himself. A hearing officer reversed, finding the injury compensable because it resulted from equipment Burnett was required to have for work. An appeals officer affirmed after a hearing, concluding that the totality of the circumstances showed that Burnett was performing work-related activities when he was injured. The district court then denied LVMPD’s petition for judicial review, and they appealed.
The Nevada Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that Burnett’s injury was compensable because it arose out of and in the course of his employment. Under Nevada law, an employee seeking workers’ compensation must establish “by a preponderance of the evidence” that an injury “arose out of and in the course of his or her employment.” When an injury occurs away from the employer’s premises or outside the actual period of employment, courts consider whether the employee was under the employer’s control and examine the “totality of the circumstances.” The Court also noted that determining whether a law enforcement officer’s injury is work-related requires consideration of “all of the circumstances surrounding” the injury because law enforcement differs from traditional employment.
Applying those principles, the Court concluded that the appeals officer properly found Burnett’s injury work-related. Although Burnett was at home before his shift and had personally purchased the flashlight, LVMPD “exercised control over the circumstances in which Burnett was injured” by requiring him to purchase the flashlight, check it, and equip himself with it before leaving home on his department-issued motorcycle. Burnett also had to be fully uniformed and equipped when he left home because, once on the motorcycle, he was required to respond to emergencies and crimes. Given these “unique facts,” the Court concluded that Burnett’s injury arose out of and in the course of his employment.
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department & CCMSI v. Burnett, No. 90807-COA, 2026 WL 1875047 (Nev. Ct. App. June 29, 2026).