Carlson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance
821 N.W.2d 760
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Carlson suffered a 2005 out-of-state injury and initially received benefits based on a $252/week wage.
- GMR claimed Carlson was an independent contractor; WSI reversed, denied benefits, and ordered repayment.
- GMR’s out-of-state lawyers, not licensed in ND, sought reconsideration; WSI’s reconsideration was found invalid in Carlson I.
- Carlson I remanded for calculation of Carlson’s average weekly wage; WSI later claimed continuing jurisdiction under ND law.
- WSI on remand concluded Carlson was an independent contractor and, alternatively, set a $722 average weekly wage if later found an employee.
- District court affirmed; the supreme court ultimately reversed WSI’s continuing-jurisdiction approach and affirmed the ALJ’s wage calculation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether law of the case/res judicata precludes continuing-jurisdiction review | Carlson says Carlson I bars reconsideration under continuing jurisdiction. | WSI contends continuing jurisdiction remains available and not barred by law of the case. | Law of the case precludes continuing-jurisdiction re-adjudication |
| Whether WSI exceeded remand scope by re-adjudicating employment status | Remand limited to wage calculation, not employment status. | WSI acted within remand to review status. | WSI’s continuing-jurisdiction review exceeded the remand scope |
| Whether the ALJ properly calculated Carlson's average weekly wage | Carlson contends ALJ’s wage calculation under §65-01-02(5)(f) is unsupported. | WSI argues ALJ’s wage calculation is supported by the record under §65-01-02(5)(f). | ALJ’s $722 average weekly wage affirmed |
| Whether Carlson is entitled to attorney’s fees under §28-32-50 | Carlson seeks fees for lack of substantial justification. | WSI had substantial justification due to law-of-the-case constraints. | No award of attorney’s fees; substantial justification exists |
| Whether health insurer could intervene to recover medical expenses | Blue Cross Blue Shield seeks intervention for reimbursement. | DSI—intervention not warranted under the record. | Intervention denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 2011 ND 194 (N.D. 2011) (limits review of agency findings; deferential to agency factual judgments)
- Drayton v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 178 (N.D. 2008) (continuing-jurisdiction authority and substantial-justification standard for fees)
- Rojas v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2006 ND 221 (N.D. 2006) (substantial-justification standard for attorney’s fees)
- Cridland v. N.D. Workers Comp. Bur., 1997 ND 223 (N.D. 1997) (administrative res judicata and continuing-jurisdiction limitations)
- Burckhard v. City of Williston, 1999 ND 64 (N.D. 1999) (mandate communication and duty to follow appellate pronouncements)