 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Robertson v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau9/5/2000
pealed the Bureau's decision and did not request a second administrative hearing. The court also concluded the Bureau's findings were supported by a preponderance of the evidence, its conclusions were supported by its findings, and its decision was in accordance with the law. Robertson appealed.
II.
[ ] On appeal, we review the Bureau's decision under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-32-19 and 28-32-21. We affirm the Bureau's decision unless its findings of fact are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, its conclusions of law are not supported by its findings of fact, its decision is not supported by its conclusions of law, its decision is not in accordance with the law, or its decision violates the claimant's constitutional rights or deprives the claimant of a fair hearing. E.g., Vernon v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1999 ND 153, 8, 598 N.W.2d 139. Our review of the Bureau's findings of fact is limited to deciding whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the findings were proven by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. Id. Questions of law, including the interpretation of a statute, are fully reviewable on appeal from a decision by the Bureau. Lee v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 218, 5, 587 N.W.2d 423.
III.
[ ] Robertson argues, after the district court remanded the case, the Bureau should have referred it back to the ALJ for additional findings of fact and conclusions of law. He argues the Bureau's procedure denied him a fair hearing and due process.
[ ] Although the Bureau may request appointment of an ALJ to hear a case, the ALJ's decision is ordinarily a recommendation. See Blanchard v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 118, 13-17, 565 N.W.2d 485. The Bureau is ultimately responsible for rendering a decision in workers compensation matters, and although the Bureau could have again referred the matter to the ALJ for additional findings and a recommendation, it was not required to do so.
[ ] On remand, the Bureau's outside litigation counsel submitted proposed additional findings to the Bureau and provided Robertson's counsel with a copy of those proposed findings. After Robertson's counsel responded, the Bureau adopted the proposed additional findings as its findings and decision. In Scott v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 221, 9-18, 587 N.W.2d 153, we concluded ex parte contacts between the Bureau's outside litigation counsel and the Bureau while the ALJ's recommendation was pending violated N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32. The Bureau's procedure in this case did not violate Scott, and we conclude it afforded Robertson reasonable notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard.
IV.
[ ] Robertson argues the district court erred in deciding he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not requesting another administrative hearing, and, instead, directly appealing the Bureau's decision on remand.
[ ] Ordinarily, a party must exhaust available administrative remedies before seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. See Frank v. Traynor, 1999 ND 193, 13, 600 N.W.2d 516; Johnson v. Traynor, 1998 ND 115, 12, 579 N.W.2d 184; Tooley v. Alm, 515 N.W.2d 137, 140 (N.D. 1994). Robertson is not seeking declaratory or injunctive relief. Instead, he is appealing a Bureau order, and the issue is whether the appeal is from a final appealable order under N.D.C.C. § 65-10-01.
[ ] In McCarty v. North Dakota Worker's Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 9, 6-7, 574 N.W.2d 556, the Bureau initially resolved an issue against itself after a formal evidentiary hearing. The Bureau then issued a second order denying benefits on a different theory
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 North Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|