Weeks v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Insurance Fund, 803 N.W.2d 601

Weeks was injured at work in 1993 (exposure to anhydrous ammonia) and later in 1999, leading to disability benefits under WSI and Social Security interplay.
WSI offset Weeks’ Social Security benefits under ND Century Code § 65-05-09.1 after May 1999, and Weeks received vocational rehabilitation and periods of temporary total disability.
In 2009, Weeks’ Social Security disability would convert to retirement benefits; WSI issued notices and sought to discontinue or reduce permanent total disability benefits, offering an “additional benefit payable” under § 65-05-09.4.
WSI ultimately applied an alternate calculation under § 65-05-09.5 in February 2010 after reconsideration, continuing Weeks’ wage-loss benefits under a different methodology.
Weeks challenged the decision, and the ALJ upheld it, with the district court affirming the ALJ on the equal protection issue, noting Weeks’ constitutional arguments were inadequately briefed.
Concurrence clarifies the merits could be reached if properly briefed, but the majority declines to address the constitutional merits due to the briefing deficiencies.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether WSI’s wage-loss reduction violates equal protection.	Weeks contends 65-05-09.3(2) is unconstitutional and discriminatory.	WSI argues the classifications are rationally related to legitimate governmental interests.	No merits addressed; the issue is not decided due to insufficient briefing.
Whether Weeks inadequately preserved or briefed the constitutional challenge.	Weeks preserved and argued equal protection and constitutional issues before the agency and district court.	Weeks’ briefing is conclusory and lacking analysis or authorities.	Issue deemed waived/not reached on the merits.
Whether the statute § 65-05-09.3 is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest.	Weeks argues the statute is inherently suspect and discriminatory.	Statute presumed constitutional; rational relationship shown by legislative history and purpose.	Court declines to address on the merits due to briefing shortcomings (majority); concurrence would reach merits.

Snyder v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bur., 2001 ND 38 (2001) (requires more than bare assertions to raise constitutional issues; need reasoned analysis)
Grand Forks Herald, 2004 ND 192, 688 N.W.2d 167 (2004) (waiver for lack of supporting argument in constitutional claims)
Olson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2008 ND 59, 747 N.W.2d 71 (2008) (limits on raising constitutional issues without adequate support)
State v. M.B., 2010 ND 57, 780 N.W.2d 663 (2010) (establishes burden on challenging constitutionality; requires thorough briefing)
MCI Telecomm. Corp. v. Heitkamp, 523 N.W.2d 548 (N.D. 1994) (treatise on presumption of constitutionality and restraint in invalidating statutes)
Richter v. Jones, 378 N.W.2d 209 (N.D. 1985) (presumption of constitutionality of statutes)