975 N.W.2d 552
N.D.2022Background
- WSI issued an informal notice of decision on January 27, 2021, finding Active Nutrition (Larson) is an employer subject to the Workforce Safety & Insurance Act and requiring wage reporting and payment of premiums, assessments, penalties, and interest.
- The notice advised an employer has 30 days from mailing to request reconsideration. WSI served the notice by regular mail.
- Larson mailed a written request for reconsideration on February 25, 2021 (within 30 days), but WSI did not receive it until March 1, 2021 (33 days after mailing); WSI deemed the request untimely and the January 27 decision final.
- Larson sent a second reconsideration request on May 27, 2021; WSI denied it on June 8, 2021 and reiterated the original decision was final and unappealable.
- Larson appealed to the district court from WSI’s June 8, 2021 determination and alternatively sought a writ of mandamus directing WSI to treat her first request as timely; the district court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction and denied mandamus. Larson appealed to the North Dakota Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court had jurisdiction to hear Larson's appeal | Larson treated WSI’s June 8 letter as an appealable agency order and appealed | WSI argued the January 27 notice became final because no timely, sufficient reconsideration was filed, so the June 8 letter is not appealable | Court held the June 8 determination was not an appealable order; appeal dismissed for lack of jurisdiction |
| Whether Larson timely "filed" a petition for reconsideration under § 65-04-32(2) | Larson argued mailing on Feb 25 was within 30 days and thus timely | WSI argued "file" means delivery to the agency and it did not receive the petition within 30 days | Court held "file" requires delivery to the recipient; Larson’s petition was untimely because WSI received it after 30 days |
| Whether N.D.R.Civ.P. 6(e) (three-day mail extension) applies to intra-agency reconsideration filings | Larson argued Rule 6(e) adds three days when notice is mailed, so her submission was timely | WSI argued the intra-agency filing deadline is statutory and not extended by civil procedure rules | Court held Rule 6(e) does not apply to intra-agency reconsideration deadlines; legislative 30-day filing deadline controls |
| Whether mandamus should compel WSI to treat Larson’s request as timely or issue a final agency order | Larson sought mandamus as the only available remedy because the decision is final and unappealable | WSI argued there was no clear legal right and an adequate remedy did not require mandamus | Court denied mandamus: Larson lacked a clear legal right because her filing was untimely and WSI correctly applied the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Inwards v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins., 851 N.W.2d 693 (N.D. 2014) (appeals from administrative proceedings are statutory and confer appellate jurisdiction)
- Ellis v. N.D. Workforce Safety and Ins., 937 N.W.2d 513 (N.D. 2020) (appeals from agencies to district court are governed by statute)
- Amoco Oil Co. v. Job Serv. N.D., 311 N.W.2d 558 (N.D. 1981) (North Dakota rules of civil procedure do not apply to intra-agency appeals)
- Shafer v. Job Serv. N.D., 464 N.W.2d 390 (N.D. 1990) (discussing time-extension issues in administrative appeal contexts)
- Motisi v. Hebron Pub. Sch. Dist., 968 N.W.2d 191 (N.D. 2021) (mandamus requires no plain, speedy, adequate remedy and a clear legal right)
- Bradley v. Beach Pub. Sch. Dist. No. 3, 427 N.W.2d 352 (N.D. 1988) (mandamus standard)