963 N.W.2d 255
N.D.2021Background
- Harold Ring, a 96‑year‑old private‑pay nursing home resident, applied for Medicaid (Apr 2018); application denied for disqualifying transfers; a second application by his daughter Nancy (Nov 2018) was also denied.
- Ring appealed to the district court (filed June 14, 2019). Ring died on November 16, 2019, before the district court entered its decision.
- The district court affirmed the Department of Human Services’ denial on December 31, 2019. An appeal was filed to the North Dakota Supreme Court (Mar 6, 2020).
- In Ring I, the Supreme Court held N.D.R.Civ.P. 25 governs substitution when death occurs while an appeal is pending, and remanded for the district court to decide substitution under Rule 25.
- On remand the district court found the action survived Ring’s death but declined to substitute a successor because no motion for substitution was filed within 90 days after service of a statement noting the death and there was uncertainty about who was being represented; the court dismissed the case (Mar 4, 2021).
- The Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal, finding no abuse of discretion in the district court’s refusal to substitute and dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which rule governs substitution after Ring’s death (Admin Code §75‑01‑03‑03 vs N.D.R.Civ.P.25)? | Section 75‑01‑03‑03 governs substitution for Medicaid applicants who die. | Rule 25 applies because Ring died while the appeal was pending. | Ring I already held N.D.R.Civ.P.25 governs here; law‑of‑the‑case bars relitigation. |
| Should a successor (Nancy Ring) be substituted for Ring? | Nancy should be appointed successor or the case remanded to DHS to appoint one. | No substitution: no motion filed within Rule 25’s 90‑day period; unclear representation/willingness to serve. | District court did not abuse its discretion in denying substitution and dismissing the action. |
| Is dismissal appropriate where no timely motion to substitute was made? | Counsel argued substitution should be allowed despite procedural lapses. | Rule 25 permits dismissal if no motion filed within 90 days; court has discretion. | Court properly exercised discretion to dismiss given the absence of a timely motion and client/representation uncertainty. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ring v. North Dakota Dept. of Human Services, 950 N.W.2d 142 (N.D. 2020) (prior opinion holding Rule 25 governs substitutions when death occurs pending district court appeal)
- Dale Expl., LLC v. Hiepler, 945 N.W.2d 306 (N.D. 2020) (defines application of the law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
- Johnston Land Co., LLC v. Sorenson, 930 N.W.2d 90 (N.D. 2019) (discusses finality of issues decided on appeal)
- State ex rel. N.D. Dep’t of Labor v. Riemers, 779 N.W.2d 649 (N.D. 2010) (law‑of‑the‑case and res judicata principles)
- Montana‑Dakota Utils. Co. v. Behm, 951 N.W.2d 208 (N.D. 2020) (application of law‑of‑the‑case doctrine)
- Glass v. Glass, 906 N.W.2d 81 (N.D. 2018) (law‑of‑the‑case promotes judicial economy and prevents piecemeal appeals)
- Dixon v. Dixon, 898 N.W.2d 706 (N.D. 2017) (court has discretion to allow substitution under Rule 25; reversal only for abuse of discretion)
- Davis v. Davis, 955 N.W.2d 117 (N.D. 2021) (defines abuse of discretion standard)