Lawmakers hear bill to clarify state active-duty coverage, benefits for Nevada National Guard members

Assemblymembers Ruben Da Silva and Ken Gray and Adjutant General Dan Waters told the Senate Government Affairs Committee on Friday that Assembly Bill 281 seeks to clarify state benefits for members of the Nevada National Guard and other state militia when they are on state active duty.

The sponsors said current law can leave gaps when a Guardsman is injured or killed while traveling to or performing a state mission. Ken Gray said families have been surprised that state active-duty status did not always produce the same benefits they would expect under federal status. General Waters described a 2023 fatality in which a Guardsman responding to a state call was killed while driving to duty and said the case exposed a disparity between federal and state compensation systems.

The bill would: (1) clarify that for purposes of industrial insurance (state workers’ compensation) a member on state active duty is deemed on duty 24 hours a day for each day of state active duty; (2) clarify the definition of state active duty for the militia; and (3) specify exclusions for members who already receive federal compensation for the same injury, disability or death. The sponsors said the intent is to ensure state-covered members and their families have access to the same kinds of state-level benefits as other state employees when injured on a state mission.

Heidi Clarkson of the committee’s legal staff told the panel that language in the bill’s first reprint does not itself make state compensation literally equal to federal compensation. She said the introduced version had language closer to federal equivalency but the first reprint preserves state benefits under existing industrial-insurance structures; if the committee intends to provide literal federal equivalence the bill must be amended further.

Witnesses including representatives of veterans’ groups and the Nevada National Guard supported the measure. Andrew LePelbit of the United Veterans Legislative Council said the moment a member "takes one step forward" on orders they are on mission and should be covered. Sponsors and the Adjutant General acknowledged they will continue to work with counsel and stakeholders to refine statutory language. Committee members asked about retroactivity; General Waters said the Guard is supporting the family involved and would welcome retroactive relief if the Legislature chooses to provide it but noted the bill as drafted does not include retroactive language.

No formal committee action was recorded at the hearing; counsel and sponsors indicated additional work on draft language is expected.