Mickelson v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance, 820 N.W.2d 333

Background

Mickelson applied for workers’ compensation benefits on 12/17/2009 for back pain claimed to arise August 30, 2009 during rough-terrain loader operation for Gratech; he alleged repetitive foot-control use caused lower back pain with right leg symptoms.
He worked for Gratech from 7/29/2009 to 12/3/2009 as an equipment operator and did not miss work for an injury during that period.
Initial chiropractor and medical notes (Aug 2009) linked back pain and radicular symptoms to lumbar strain from repetitive foot-control use; later MRI showed degenerative disk disease.
WSI denied benefits in Feb 2010, citing preexisting degeneration and that the employment-triggered symptoms did not substantially accelerate or worsen the condition.
ALJ upheld the denial, finding symptoms were due to preexisting degenerative disk disease and that employment merely triggered symptoms rather than substantially accelerating progression.
Court reverses and remands for proper application of the statute to determine compensability under N.D.C.C. § 65-01-02(10)(b)(7).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether employment substantially accelerates progression or worsens severity of a preexisting condition	Mickelson argues employment substantially worsened his degenerative disk disease.	WSI argues triggering symptoms does not prove substantial acceleration or worsening of the disease.	Reversed and remanded for proper application of the statute.
Whether triggering of symptoms constitutes compensable injury under § 65-01-02(10)(b)(7)	Mickelson contends triggering can be compensable if it substantially accelerates or worsens the underlying condition.	WSI contends triggering alone is insufficient without substantial acceleration/worsening.	Remanded for correct analysis under current law.
Whether the ALJ properly weighed medical opinions (Peterson vs. Goehner)	Mickelson argues ALJ relied on incorrect interpretation of physicians’ views.	WSI asserts the ALJ reasonably weighed expert opinions supporting non-compensability.	Remand for proper application of § 65-01-02(10)(b)(7).
Whether the preexisting condition excludes compensation unless substantial acceleration/worsening is shown	Mickelson argues there may be compensable injury if employment altered disease progression.	WSI adheres to preexisting-condition exclusion absent substantial acceleration or worsening.	Remand to determine if substantial acceleration/worsening occurs.
Whether notice and other issues affect compensability	Mickelson suggests additional grounds (notice) could bear on claim.	WSI argues those issues are non-final or not dispositive for current appeal.	Remand to address proper rule under notice provisions if applicable.

Key Cases Cited

Geck v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 583 N.W.2d 621 (ND 1998) (pain can aggravate latent underlying condition; remand for findings on substantial aggravation/acceleration)
Pleinis v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 472 N.W.2d 459 (ND 1991) (defined compensable injury under prior statute; latent conditions and aggravation framework)
Geek v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 583 N.W.2d 621 (ND 1998) (pain as aggravation of an underlying condition; legacy framework discussed in context of §65-01-02(10))
Bergum v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 764 N.W.2d 178 (ND 2009) (applies current statute; burden on claimant; substantial acceleration/worsening required)
Bruder v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 761 N.W.2d 588 (ND 2009) (employment must be substantial contributing factor; not sole cause)
Johnson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 816 N.W.2d 74 (ND 2012) (discusses preexisting condition and triggering vs. substantial aggravation)
Auck v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 785 N.W.2d 186 (ND 2010) (standard of review for agency findings and legal conclusions)
Manske v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 748 N.W.2d 394 (ND 2008) (burden on claimant to prove compensable injury by medical evidence)