Bishop v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance
823 N.W.2d 257
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Bishop sustained 2004 and 2008 work injuries as a truck driver, with physical and psychological impairments including impulse control disorder and PTSD.
- WSI paid medical, vocational rehabilitation, and temporary total disability benefits after the 2008 injury; Bishop briefly returned to driving, then to light office work.
- In May 2009 WSI referred Bishop to Corvel for vocational rehabilitation; she completed an FCE in December 2009 showing capability for full-time light-duty work.
- Corvel identified dispatcher, customer service representative, and information clerk/receptionist as return-to-work options based on the FCE and job match.
- WSI issued a notice of discontinuance in June 2010 and a final order on August 13, 2010 denying further vocational rehabilitation and disability benefits; Bishop challenged in district court, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
- The issue on appeal is whether the ALJ’s finding that Bishop could perform the identified return-to-work options is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the ALJ’s finding of capability supported by the evidence? | Bishop argues cognitive/psychological limitations were not properly considered. | WSI asserts the record supports the plan and Dr. Arazi approved the options. | Yes; the court affirmed the ALJ’s finding. |
| Did WSI properly consider Bishop’s cognitive/psychological limitations in selecting options? | WSI failed to obtain expert input on mental impairments. | Record showed treating physicians approved the options. | Yes; court affirmed considering whole record and approvals. |
| Did the ALJ err in relying on a treating neurologist’s approval without specific ‘magic words’? | No explicit statement linking mental impairments to each option required. | No requirement for magic words; approval by treating physician suffices. | No; court affirmed. |
| Was WSI obligated to assess all functional limitations when forming the plan? | Argument that holistic assessment of cognitive/psych limits was missing. | Evidence showed consideration of Bishop’s medical history. | No reversible error; plan supported by weight of evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 2011 ND 194 (ND 2011) (standard of review for agency decisions; deference to ALJ findings)
- Auck v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 2010 ND 126 (ND 2010) (deference to ALJ factual findings; questions of law reviewable)
- Shotbolt v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 2010 ND 13 (ND 2010) (burden on WSI to establish rehabilitation plan; substantial gainful employment standard)
- Genter v. Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund, 2006 ND 237 (ND 2006) (consideration of all functional limitations in rehab planning)
- Svedberg v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1999 ND 181 (ND 1999) (worker’s actual functional capacities must be considered)