Zaiser v. Jaeger
2012 ND 221
| N.D. | 2012Background
- Bishop sustained 2004 and 2008 work injuries as a truck driver, with physical and psychological impairments including depression, anxiety, memory loss, PTSD, and impulse control disorder.
- WSI paid Bishop medical, vocational rehabilitation, and temporary total disability benefits after the 2008 injury; she briefly returned to trucking and later did a 4-hour-per-day office job for her pre-injury employer, with no evidence her psychological issues affected office work.
- In May 2009 WSI referred Bishop to Corvel for vocational rehabilitation; December 2009 an FCE showed capability for full-time light-duty work; a job-match was prepared and options identified as dispatcher, CSR, and information clerk/receptionist.
- WSI issued a June 6, 2010 notice of intent to discontinue benefits and a August 13, 2010 order denying further rehabilitation and disability benefits; Bishop requested a formal hearing, followed by an ALJ decision affirming WSI, and the district court affirmed this ruling.
- The issue on appeal concerns whether the ALJ’s finding that Bishop could perform the identified return-to-work options is supported by the preponderance of the evidence; the court reviewed under a deferential standard to the agency’s findings but independent review of legal conclusions.
- The ALJ found Dr. Arazi, Bishop’s treating neurologist, approved the identified options and that other medical evidence supported that Bishop’s cognitive and psychological impairments did not preclude the return-to-work options.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ’s finding of capability for the return-to-work options is supported by the evidence | Bishop contends the plan ignores cognitive/psych limitations and lacks expert opinion | WSI asserts the evidence, including Dr. Arazi’s approval, supports the plan | Yes; preponderance supports capability for the options |
| Whether WSI properly considered Bishop’s mental impairments in selecting options | WSI failed to assess cognitive/psych factors affecting public-facing work | Evidence showed rehabilitation options were suitable given Bishop’s overall functioning | Yes; plan adequately considered functional limitations and is reasonable |
| Whether treating physicians’ input is required to validate the options | Plaintiff urged need for explicit medical opinion tying options to mental impairments | ALJ properly weighed multiple medical sources, including Dr. Arazi’s concurrence | Yes; no magical words required; Arazi’s concurrence plus records suffice |
| Whether the burden to prove rehabilitation plan appropriateness rests with WSI | WSI bears burden to show plan would return to substantial gainful employment | WSI satisfied burden through evidence and expert concurrence | Yes; WSI carried the burden and the plan was reasonable |
| Whether the district court properly affirmed the ALJ’s factual findings | Bishop argues findings do not reflect complete record and are not supported by weight of evidence | Court properly afforded deference to ALJ’s credibility determinations | Yes; standard of review applicable to factual findings was met |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 804 N.W.2d 184 (ND 2011) (deferential review of ALJ findings; weight of evidence standard)
- Workforce Safety & Ins. v. Auck, 785 N.W.2d 186 (ND 2010) (application of standard for agency decisions; factual findings)
- Shotbolt v. North Dakota Workforce Safety & Ins., 777 N.W.2d 853 (ND 2010) (rehabilitation plan must provide realistic opportunity to return to work)
- Genter v. Workforce Safety & Ins. Fund, 724 N.W.2d 132 (ND 2006) (consideration of all functional limitations in rehab planning)
- Svedberg v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 599 N.W.2d 323 (ND 1999) (worker’s actual functional capacities must be considered for meaningful rehab plan)
- In re Juran & Moody, Inc., 613 N.W.2d 503 (ND 2000) (credibility of witnesses and weighing evidence in agency context)