134 P.3d 733 (2006) Alexander SEPUT, an Individual, Appellant, v. Enrique LACAYO, M.D., an Individual, Respondent. No. 44309. Supreme Court of Nevada. May 25, 2006. *734 Law Offices of James J. Lee and James J. Lee and Patricia A. Marr, Las Vegas, for Appellant. Kravitz, Schnitzer, Sloane, Johnson & Eberhardy, Chtd., and Jane M. Eberhardy, Henderson, for Respondent. Before ROSE, C.J., GIBBONS and HARDESTY, JJ. OPINION PER CURIAM. In this case, we decide whether a homeowner enjoys immunity, under the workers' compensation statutes, from a premises liability suit brought by an employee of a pest control contractor. The homeowner hired the pest control contractor to perform extermination services. The pest control service employee was injured when he fell through a hole in the second story floor while performing the contracted extermination services. The district court determined that the homeowner was immune under the workers' compensation statutes and dismissed the case. We disagree. We conclude that home extermination services are included within the definition of household domestic service and are specifically excluded as statutory employees under NRS 616A.110(4). Consequently, the pest control service worker is not the homeowner's employee as defined under NRS 616A.110, and we therefore reverse the district court's dismissal order and remand for further proceedings. FACTS Dr. Enrique Lacayo, M.D., contracted with Pestaway to provide extermination services for his residence. The services consisted of "monthly spraying with chemicals for the purpose of controlling insects." On October 21, 2003, Pestaway sent one of its employees, Alexander Seput, to perform extermination services at Dr. Lacayo's home. While performing these services, Seput fell through a hole from the second floor to the first floor of Dr. Lacayo's residence and sustained serious injuries. Seput sued Dr. Lacayo for negligent maintenance of the premises and failure to warn or maintain adequate safeguards. Dr. Lacayo moved to dismiss the lawsuit under NRCP 12(b)(5), based on immunity as a landowner under Nevada's workers' compensation laws. The district court granted Dr. Lacayo's motion. Seput now appeals. DISCUSSION A motion to dismiss under NRCP 12(b)(5) is subject to a rigorous standard of review on appeal.[1] "All factual allegations in the complaint are [viewed] as true, and all inferences are drawn in favor of the non-moving party."[2] Further, "[a] complaint should only be dismissed if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff could *735 prove no set of facts, which, if true, would entitle him to relief. Dismissal is proper where the allegations are insufficient to establish the elements of a claim for relief."[3] The district court's conclusions of law are subject to our de novo review.[4] Under Nevada's workers' compensation scheme, an employee injured on the job can claim workers' compensation from his employer, who receives immunity from any litigation regarding the injury in exchange for participating in the workers' compensation system.[5] In some cases, the employer's immunity may be extended to third parties.[6] Who is considered an employer and who receives immunity differs depending on whether a job is classified as construction or nonconstruction.[7] …
Original document ES