Heier v. N.D. Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation
2012 ND 171
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Mickelson applied for workers’ compensation on 12/17/2009 claiming back pain from August 2009 due to repetitive foot control and rough terrain while working for Gratech.
- MRI in January 2010 showed moderate to severe degenerative disk disease with a central disk protrusion at L5-S1; treating notes linked symptoms to work activities.
- WSI initially denied benefits, later reaffirmed denial based on records and a medical consultant’s opinion that work trigger did not substantially accelerate or worsen the preexisting condition.
- ALJ adopted WSI’s view that Mickelson’s symptoms were due to degenerative disc disease and that employment merely triggered symptoms, not substantially worsened the condition.
- Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the law requires substantial acceleration or substantial worsening of a preexisting condition; the ALJ misapplied the statute and the evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does triggering symptoms in a preexisting condition suffice? | Mickelson asserted triggering constitutes compensable injury when it worsens the underlying condition. | WSI argued triggering alone is insufficient absent substantial acceleration or worsening. | Trigger alone not compensable; must substantially accelerate or worsen. |
| Did the ALJ properly weigh medical opinions on causation? | Mickelson’s doctors tied symptoms to work; ALJ ignored this link. | Dr. Peterson’s view that work did not worsen the disease supported denial. | ALJ misapplied the statute by not considering whether employment would not have progressed similarly without work. |
| Should the case be remanded for proper application of § 65-01-02(10)(b)(7)? | The legislature intended a substantial aggravation/worsening analysis, not a mere trigger. | Existing findings adequately addressed compensability under current law. | Remand to properly apply the statute. |
Key Cases Cited
- Geck v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 583 N.W.2d 621 (ND 1998) (pain can be substantial aggravation of latent underlying condition)
- Pleinis v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 472 N.W.2d 459 (ND 1991) (defines compensable injury when employment substantially aggravates/accelerates condition)
- Bergum v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 764 N.W.2d 178 (ND 2009) (applies current statute requiring substantial acceleration or worsening)
- Johnson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2012 ND 87 (ND 2012) (reiterates need for substantial aggravation/worsening for compensability)
- Bruder v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2009 ND 23 (ND 2009) (employer need not be sole cause; substantial contributing factor required)
- Manske v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 79 (ND 2008) (burden on claimant to show causal relation by preponderance)