State ex rel. Department of Human Services v. North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund
822 N.W.2d 38
| N.D. | 2012Background
- The Department of Human Services, through its Child Support Enforcement Division, sought to enforce an administrative subpoena against the North Dakota Insurance Reserve Fund (NDIRF).
- NDIRF is a government self-insurance pool whose members include ND political subdivisions.
- In July 2010, the Department issued a blanket administrative subpoena to NDIRF seeking all records identifying individuals with pending or recently paid claims.
- NDIRF objected, arguing lack of statutory authority and that the subpoena was vague, ambiguous, and unnecessarily burdensome.
- The district court denied enforcement, ruling the Department lacked statutory authority and did not address other challenges; the Department appealed.
- The Supreme Court held jurisdiction to review under N.D.C.C. § 28-27-02(2) as a final order in a special proceeding and reversed to remand for four-factor review of the subpoena’s enforceability.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Department may compel disclosure via administrative subpoena to NDIRF. | NDIRF’s discretion under § 26.1-02-28 precludes mandatory disclosure. | Department retains authority under § 50-09-08.2(l)(b) to subpoena records from NDIRF. | Yes; statutes harmonized to permit subpoena while allowing voluntary disclosures. |
| Whether § 26.1-02-28 conflicts irreconcilably with § 50-09-08.2 and is controlling. | NDIRF’s statute defeats Department’s subpoena power. | The statutes can be harmonized; § 26.1-02-28 merely permits voluntary disclosure with immunity. | No irreconcilable conflict; harmonization preserves Department’s subpoena authority. |
| Whether the district court’s denial of enforcement lacked consideration of vagueness/undue burden, warranting remand. | The district court didn’t address all grounds raised by NDIRF. | N/A | Remand for proper consideration of vagueness, ambiguity, and burdensomeness under limited review. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Hammer, 2010 ND 152 (2010) (enforcement of administrative subpoenas reviewed in special proceedings)
- State v. Altru Health Sys., 2007 ND 38 (2007) (appeal from contempt/administrative proceedings)
- Medical Arts Clinic, P.C. v. Franciscan Initiatives, Inc., 531 N.W.2d 289 (N.D.1995) (review of ongoing administrative proceedings; four-factor enforcement standard cited)