Supreme Court rejects appeal by card dealer

Thursday, Dec. 23, 2004 | 11:07 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Wednesday denied the appeal of card dealer Raymond Buxsel, who sued Mandalay Bay and a security guard for the Strip resort after he was injured and could not return to his job.

Buxsel was hurt when security guard Christopher McMaster pushed him from behind while responding to an emergency.

In the ruling, the court said Buxsel lacked evidence to back up his claims of misconduct by the casino and security guard. It also ruled there would be no sanctions imposed against Buxsel's lawyer James J. Ream, accused by Mandalay of filing a frivolous claim.

After being injured in June 1999, Buxsel submitted a workers' compensation claim and also filed suit against the guard and the resort. He claimed intentional infliction of emotional distress and battery. He said he suffered back and bladder injuries, sexual dysfunction and foot drop, and was unable to return to work.

District Judge Nancy Saitta granted a pretrial summary judgment in favor of Mandalay Bay and McMaster in the suit.

The Supreme Court said an employee could file a tort suit against an employer even while receiving workers' compensation benefit, if the worker has not received a final ruling on his compensation claim.

The court said Buxsel was free to file suit in this case since there had been no final determination on his compensation claim.

But the court said Buxsel failed to present evidence to substantiate his allegation of battery and he offered "mere conjecture" as to the events surrounding the incident. It said Judge Saitta was correct in granting the summary judgment.

The court rejected the appeal of Mandalay Bay that wanted sanctions against Ream.

The court said it has the power to impose a sanction for filing frivolous claims when the claims are baseless.

"Here, the craftily composed opening statements by Buxsel's attorney bordered on brazen misrepresentations," said the court. "We note that Buxsel nearly crossed the fine line between misleading the district court and utilizing an attorney's creativity in pursuit of factual or legal theories."

But it said sanctions are not intended "to chill an attorney's enthusiasm or creativity enlisted in reasonable pursuit of factual or legal theories."

Justice Bill Maupin dissented, saying sanctions should be levied "for intentional misrepresentations made to this court in prior proceedings."