 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Smith v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau3/21/2000
e 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, or its decision is not in accordance with the law. Dean v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1997 ND 165, 14, 567 N.W.2d 626. In evaluating the findings of fact, we do not make independent findings or substitute our judgment for that of the Bureau, id., but ask only whether a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined the findings were proven by the weight of the evidence from the entire record. Loberg, at 5.
III.
[ ] Smith argues the Bureau failed to establish he took methamphetamine and also failed to show the illegal use of a controlled substance caused his injury. Thus, he contends the Bureau's decision was not supported by the evidence. We disagree.
[ ] Smith admitted to a Bureau investigator that, on the day before his injury, he took a capsule he knew to contain methamphetamine; Dr. Bobbitt testified methamphetamine remains in the body for up to 36 hours. Smith also admitted ingesting Disoxin, a methamphetamine for which he could not produce a prescription, on the day after his injury. Smith told his treating physician's assistant he was a recreational methamphetamine user, and she testified she believed his drug problem was ongoing. Further, when later denying his use of methamphetamines, Smith provided evasive answers and changed stories several times. The ALJ considered it incredible that someone with an ongoing recreational methamphetamine habit would have ten-year-old Disoxin in his medicine cabinet. The ALJ also was unpersuaded by Smith's explanation that eating the cotton from the Vicks inhaler accounted for his positive drug test results. It is the Bureau's responsibility to assess the credibility of witnesses and resolve conflicts in the evidence. Stewart v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 174, 7, 599 N.W.2d 280. We conclude a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined Smith had nonprescribed, and thus illegal, methamphetamine in his system on January 8, 1998, based on the testimony at the hearing and on an analysis of Smith's credibility.
[ ] We also determine the Bureau's findings support its conclusion that the methamphetamine in Smith's system caused his frostbite injury. In Hust v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, it was unnecessary for us to decide whether the Bureau had the burden of proving a claimant's impairment was a proximate cause of, or a substantial contributing factor to, his injury because, under either standard, the Bureau's decision was supported by the record. 1998 ND 20, 13, 574 N.W.2d 808. The same is true in this case.
[ ] Dr. Bobbitt testified methamphetamine causes constriction of the blood vessels and reduces blood flow, making someone who takes it more susceptible to cold. Bobbitt also testified fingers and toes are particularly vulnerable in this situation. Given that methamphetamine may remain in the body for up to 36 hours, the capsule Smith took the day before his injury could have been affecting his vascular system on January 8, 1998, reducing the blood flow to his fingers. Though temperatures were extreme that day, no other employee suffered from frostbite. Thus, a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined from the weight of the evidence that methamphetamine caused Smith's injury.
IV.
[ ] The Bureau's determination that the illegal use of methamphetamine caused Smith's frostbite injury is supported by the evidence in the record. Under N.D.C.C. ยง 65-01-02(11)(b)(3), an injury caused by the illegal use of a controlled substance is non-compensable. We, therefore, affirm the Bureau's di
Page 1 2 3 4 North Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|