Curran v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance, 791 N.W.2d 622

Curran had prior lower back injuries and degenerative disc disease before the February 13, 2007 work incident.
While working as a nurse, Curran bent to pick up a band-aid and immediately experienced significant back pain.
WSI initially denied Curran’s claim, concluding the work incident only triggered preexisting symptoms and did not substantially accelerate or worsen her condition.
Curran sought medical treatment after the incident; multiple providers offered opinions about causation and the impact on her preexisting condition.
The district court reversed WSI’s denial, finding Curran had proven, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the injury substantially accelerated or worsened her preexisting condition.
The Supreme Court reversed the district court, reinstating WSI’s denial and affirming that Curran did not prove a compensable injury under the governing statute.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Curran proved a compensable injury by a preponderance of the evidence.	Curran contends the work injury substantially accelerated or worsened her preexisting condition.	WSI argues the work injury did not substantially accelerate or worsen Curran’s preexisting condition and that the claim is not compensable.	Yes; the agency’s findings were supported by weight of the evidence (WSI denial affirmed).
Whether WSI properly weighed conflicting medical opinions.	Curran asserts WSI ignored or improperly rejected favorable medical evidence of aggravation.	WSI contends it reasonably weighed evidence and relied on a comprehensive view of the record.	Yes; WSI adequately explained its weighting and rejected contrary evidence in a reasoned manner.
Whether the district court erred in reversing WSI under the proper standard of review.	Curran argues the district court correctly applied weighing of the record to find substantial aggravation.	WSI maintains the district court reweighed the evidence inappropriately rather than applying the standard of review.	Yes; the district court’s reversal was improper; the agency’s order should be affirmed.

Tverberg v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2006 ND 229 (N.D. 2006) (agency credibility weighing reviewed under weight-of-the-evidence standard)
Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214 (N.D. 1979) (scope of review for agency decisions)
Bergum v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2009 ND 52 (N.D. 2009) (preexisting injuries and causation framework for compensable injuries)
Manske v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 79 (N.D. 2008) (substantial contributing factor standard for causation)
Swenson v. Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund, 2007 ND 149 (N.D. 2007) (objective medical evidence and causation burden developments)
Elshaug v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2003 ND 177 (N.D. 2003) (rejecting selective evidence weighing and requiring explanation)