unable to work. The only physician's opinion in the record that addressed respondent's work abilities is Dr. Patrick McNulty's May 31, 2011, evaluation, which opined that although respondent's condition "prevents him from definitely going back to work as a driver," respondent could return to "modified duty as per [his] previous long-term work restrictions." Because respondent's treating physician determined that respondent could return to modified duty, and because there is no other medical opinion in the record to the contrary, we conclude that substantial evidence does not support the appeals officer's determination that respondent was entitled to ongoing TTD benefits. See NRS 616C.475(5)(a) (explaining that TTD benefits must cease when a physician determines that the injured worker is physically capable of any gainful employment for which the employee is suited); Nev. Indus. Comm'n v. Taylor, 98 Nev. 131, 132-33, 642 P.2d 598, 599 (1982) (holding that when "[t]here was no competent medical authority contrary" to the injured worker's treating physician's opinion releasing him to work, TTD benefits must cease until competent medical authority determined otherwise). Accordingly, appellant properly terminated respondent's TTD benefits, and we reverse the district court's order denying the petition for judicial review. See Vredenburg v. Sedgwick CMS, 124 Nev. 553, 557, 188 P.3d 1084, 1087-88 (2008) (reviewing an appeals officer's fact-based conclusions of law for substantial evidence).

It is so ORDERED.

Gibbons Pickering SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cc: Hon. Kathleen E. Delaney, District Judge Janet Trost, Settlement Judge Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP/Las Vegas Shook & Stone, Chtd.

Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA (0) 1947A cselo