Decrow v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance Fund
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 13877
| 8th Cir. | 2017Background
- Deke DeCrow, a Colorado resident, died in North Dakota while working; his widow Autumn DeCrow claimed workers’ compensation benefits from North Dakota (WSI) and Colorado (DWC).
- WSI granted North Dakota death benefits in July 2012; DeCrow’s Colorado claim was contested and unresolved when she sought a hearing in Colorado.
- North Dakota statute N.D.C.C. § 65-05-05(2) suspends future WSI benefits pending resolution of an application for benefits in another state and requires reimbursement if the claimant later obtains benefits elsewhere.
- Colorado law (C.R.S. § 8-42-114) allows supplemental benefits that reduce Colorado payments by 50% of other periodic benefits but does not adopt North Dakota’s exclusivity rule.
- DeCrow sued in federal court seeking declaratory relief that § 65-05-05(2) is invalid under the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Full Faith and Credit Clauses because the suspension effectively prevents her from pursuing Colorado supplemental benefits.
- The district court granted judgment on the pleadings for WSI; the Eighth Circuit affirmed, rejecting DeCrow’s equal protection, substantive due process, and Full Faith and Credit claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 65-05-05(2) violates Equal Protection | DeCrow: statute irrationally deprives claimants of benefits and targets those seeking other-state benefits | WSI: statute advances rational goals of avoiding duplicate recovery and limiting liability uniformly | Held: passes rational-basis review; statute serves valid state interests |
| Whether § 65-05-05(2) violates Substantive Due Process | DeCrow: suspension deprives property interest in benefits during application process without adequate justification | WSI: suspension reduces recovery costs and administrative burdens; encouragement to choose jurisdiction is rational | Held: substantive due process claim fails under rational-basis standard |
| Whether suspension (vs. reimbursement) is impermissible because it acts on application rather than award | DeCrow: suspension imposes immediate, unnecessary hardship; reimbursement would suffice | WSI: suspending limits recoverable overpayments and administrative burdens of later collection | Held: suspension is rationally related to legitimate state interests and is permissible |
| Whether § 65-05-05(2) violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause by preventing Colorado supplemental benefits | DeCrow: North Dakota may not subordinate Colorado’s more generous policy; suspension effectively thwarts Colorado awards | WSI: Full Faith and Credit does not require North Dakota to adopt another State’s statutory policy; each State may enforce its own laws | Held: no Full Faith and Credit violation; a State need not substitute another State’s statutes for its own |
Key Cases Cited
- Carroll v. Lanza, 349 U.S. 408 (U.S. 1955) (Full Faith and Credit does not require a State to apply another State's conflicting statute)
- Pac. Emp’rs Ins. Co. v. Indus. Accident Comm’n, 306 U.S. 493 (U.S. 1939) (States need not substitute other States' statutes for their own on matters within their competence)
- Thomas v. Washington Gas Light Co., 448 U.S. 261 (U.S. 1980) (plurality) (discusses interplay of competing state compensation schemes and limits of Full Faith and Credit)
- Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (U.S. 2003) (a State need not subordinate its statutes to those of another State)
- U.S. Fid. & Guar. Co. v. N.D. Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 275 N.W.2d 618 (N.D. 1979) (North Dakota articulated exclusivity rationale to avoid duplicate benefits)