Skip to main content

Fair treatment of injury claims

Ricardo Mejia Reyes v. Associated Risk Management

Updated Nov 12, 2026

In brief

Where it stands
Dismissed

Petition denied.

What it’s about
Ricardo Mejia Reyes asked the Supreme Court to consider whether a Nevada workers’ compensation insurer denied his injury-benefit claim without fair procedures and treated protected-class workers differently.
Who it affects
The Court issued no ruling on whether Reyes’s treatment violated the Fourteenth Amendment.

Summary: written with AI from the case record.

Illustration for Ricardo Mejia Reyes, Petitioner v. Associated Risk Management, Inc.
Conceptual illustration · AI-generated

What it's about

The Court refused to hear the case (denied review) and did not decide those constitutional questions.

The case came from the Supreme Court of Nevada and concerns a workers’ compensation benefits claim.

Question presented

1. Whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is violated when a state workers' compensation insurer, acting under color of state law, denies a claimant's valid claim for work-related injury benefits without providing meaningful notice of the basis for denial, an adequate opportunity to be heard before a neutral decisionmaker, or access to the administrative record upon which the denial was based, and when the state courts affirm such denial under a deferential standard of review that forecloses independent examination of the federal constitutional claim. 2. Whether the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution is violated when a state workers' compensation system, as administered and enforced by the insurer and affirmed by the courts of the State of Nevada, treats injured workers who are members of a protected class differently from similarly situated claimants, by subjecting their claims to heightened scrutiny, requiring additional documentation not required of other claimants, and by denying those claims at a disproportionate rate, without a rational basis sufficient to survive even rational-basis review.

Documents

1

Docket activity

6
  • New analysis added

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • AI analysis generated: Case Briefing

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • AI analysis generated: Decision Record

    Nov 12, 2026 · Generated

  • Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

  • Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata

    Nov 12, 2026 · Court records

Show 1 more
  • Brief added: Petition

    Aug 25, 2025 · Court records

Sources

Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.

Checked Nov 12, 2026Methodology

Court records and filings

Reporting and analysis