Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Nevada: Lack of “Salary” No Bar to TTD Benefits for Self-Employed FedEx Driver

August 14, 2015 (1 min read)







The Nevada Supreme Court held that a self-employed delivery driver who contracted with FedEx Home Delivery for one of its routes was entitled to TTD benefits in spite of his lack of a “salary” in a traditional sense. The driver acknowledged that he continued to receive the same compensation from FedEx following his work-related accident. He argued, however, that he had to hire and pay a replacement driver during the period he could not work and that his income had been diminished in such a fashion that he qualified for TTD benefits. The court agreed and indicated the appeals officer had erred when she concluded that she could not compute the driver’s earnings. She should have taken into account his business income and expenses. Too much attention had been paid to the issue of the self-employed driver’s salary.

Thomas A. Robinson, J.D., the Feature National Columnist for the LexisNexis Workers’ Compensation eNewsletter, is the co-author of Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law (LexisNexis).

LexisNexis Online Subscribers: Citations below link to Lexis Advance. Bracketed citations link to

See Mensah v. CorVel Corp., 2015 Nev. LEXIS 64, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 60 (Aug. 6, 2015) [2015 Nev. LEXIS 64, 131 Nev. Adv. Rep. 60 (Aug. 6, 2015)]

See generally Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, § 93.01 [93.01]

For a more detailed discussion of the case, see

Source: Larson’s Workers’ Compensation Law, the nation’s leading authority on workers’ compensation law.









For more information about LexisNexis products and solutions connect with us through our corporate site