Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
| Decision Date | 24 January 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 9238,9238 |
| Citation | 250 N.W.2d 249 |
| Parties | Elvin O. BENSON, Appellee, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU, Appellant. Civ. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. It is questionable whether one who seeks to enjoy the benefits under a law can thereafter, in the same proceeding, question the constitutionality of the Act under which he proceeds.
2. For reasons stated in the opinion, the case is remanded to give claimant the opportunity to have the case put in the proper procedural posture as a declaratory judgment action.
John E. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Richard J. Gross, Special Asst. Atty. Gen., Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Bismarck, for appellant; argued by John E. Adams.
Reichert, Howe, Hardy, Moench, Galloway & Jorgensen, Dickinson, for appellee; argued by Dale W. Moench, Dickinson.
This is an appeal by the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau from a judgment of the district court of Stark County, which reversed the Bureau's denial of an agricultural employee's claim for benefits and determined that the exclusion of 'agricultural service' from the mandatory provisions of the Workmen's Compensation Act violates the Constitution of North Dakota and the Constitution of the United States.
The parties raised two issues on appeal: (1) Does the 'agricultural service' exclusion established by § 65--01--02(4)(a)(1), NDCC, violate the Constitution? (2) Is Elvin O. Benson entitled to benefits under the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Act?
Benson was injured in the course of his employment as a general farmhand for Decker Dairy of rural Dickinson, owned by Donald C. Decker. Pursuant to Decker's instructions, Benson, on horseback, was bringing in a heifer when the horse fell on him, breaking Benson's right leg. Benson filed a claim for benefits with the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau. The claim form indicated that Benson's average gross weekly wage was $110.00 and that he worked an average of 85 hours per week. Decker declared that the information submitted by Benson was correct except that he says he also furnished Benson with living quarters, milk, eggs, electricity, and gas. Decker participated in no other manner, but received notice of proceedings before the Bureau and in district court. The Bureau determined that Benson was injured in an agricultural employment, that his employer was a farmer engaged in an agricultural endeavor, and that, under § 65--01--02(4)(a)(1), agricultural employment is defined as nonhazardous, and coverage for such employment is not mandatory. The Bureau further determined that Benson's employer had not elected to secure workmen's compensation insurance under § 65--04--29, NDCC. Benson's claim was denied and he appealed.
The district court, on appeal, reviewed the record and held that the agricultural service classification, as established under § 65--01--02(4)(a) (1), is unreasonable, arbitrary, has no rational basis, discriminates against agricultural employees and nonagricultural employers, and offends and violates Sections 1, 11, 13, and 20 of Article I of the North Dakota Constitution, and Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Accordingly, the court reversed the Bureau and awarded benefits to Benson under the Workmen's Compensation Act. This appeal by the Workmen's Compensation Bureau followed.
There is no dispute that Benson was engaged in 'agricultural service' within the meaning of the statute in question. Thus the principal issue is the constitutonality of § 65--01--02(4)(a)(1), which provides:
'4. a. 'Hazardous employment' shall mean any employment in which one or more employees are employed regularly in the same business or in or about the establishment except:
(1) Agricultural or domestic service;'
If we are to make a determination of the validity of the agricultural exclusion from the Workmen's Compensation Act, we are confronted with a particularly difficult task. See State v. Hagen, 44 N.D. 306, 175 N.W. 372 (1919). The potentially widespread effect upon a largely rural state, such as North Dakota, requires our sincerest scrutiny of this question. In according the issues presented he deliberation they merit, it is apparent to us that the present posture of this case prevents us from making an informed and well-considered decision. For the reasons to be discussed in this opinion, after many conferences, we have concluded that this case must be remanded to the district court.
The major obstacle presented by this appeal is the impropriety of raising constitutional questions for the first time on appeal from an administrative agency's decision. While we have allowed such an appeal on constitutional issues in one unique instance, Snyder's Drug Stores v. North Dakota St. Bd. of Ph., 202 N.W.2d 140 (N.D.1972), we do not consider it controlling precedent. Benson, here, filed a claim with the Workmen's Compensation Bureau and thus submitted to its jurisdiction. It is questionable whether one who seeks to enjoy the benefits under a law can thereafter, in the same proceeding, question the constitutionality of the Act under which he proceeds. City of Fargo v. Annexation Review Commission, 123 N.W.2d 281 (N.D.1963).
Furthermore, while Section 65--10--01, NDCC, of the Workmen's Compensation Act provides for appeal to the district court from the Bureau's decision, the appealable issues under the Act do not include the constitutionality of the Act itself. Section 65--10--01 provides that any appeal to the district court shall be heard upon the record transmitted from the Bureau and it further specifies that an appeal under that section shall be taken in the manner provided in Chapter 28--32, NDCC, the Administrative Agencies Practice Act. That Act also provides that the record made before the administrative agency is the record considered on appeal. Section 28--32--19, NDCC; Application of Bank of Rhame, 231 N.W.2d 801 (N.D.1975). The issue of the constitutionality of the agricultural exclusion was not raised before the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, and therefore it cannot be a part of that agency's record filed with the district court on appeal. It cannot be raised for the first time on appeal to the district court when it was not raised initially at the administrative hearing. See 5 Am.Jur.2d Appeal and Error, § 574, at 48; Hazelton-Moffit Special School Dist. No. 6 v. Ward, 107 N.W.2d 636 (N.D.1961).
In the event that we could overcome this...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 9238-A
...to this court, we remanded because of procedural deficiencies and made suggestions as to procedure and issues. Benson v. N. D. Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 250 N.W.2d 249 (N.D.1977). On this appeal, we will address the merits of the constitutionality of the agricultural exclusion under the Workm......
-
Johnson v. Elkin
...submitted in the first instance to the trial court for its determination." 181 N.W.2d at 745-746. In Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 250 N.W.2d 249, 250-251 (N.D.1977) we said, in a case involving an appeal from a district court determination that the agricultural excl......
-
At&T v Ar Public Service Comm., 99-860
...commissions and other administrative agencies. E.g., Lewis v. Anaconda Co., 543 P.2d 1339 (Mont. 1975); Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 250 N.W.2d 249 (N.D. 1977); and Unemployment Compensation Department v. Hunt, 17 Wash. 2d 228, 135 P.2d 89 (1943); see also 3 A. Lars......
-
Hamilton v. Jeffrey Stone Co.
...and other administrative agencies. E.g., Lewis v. Anaconda Co., 168 Mont. 463, 543 P.2d 1339 (1975); Benson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 250 N.W.2d 249 (N.D.1977); and Unemployment Compensation Department v. Hunt, 17 Wash.2d 228, 135 P.2d 89 (1943); see also 3 A. Larson, T......