O'Brien v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau

• Decision Date: 10 October 1974
• Docket Number: No. 9033,9033
• Citation: 222 N.W.2d 379
• Parties: Ivan L. O'BRIEN, Claimant and Appellee, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU and Great Plains Supply Company, Respondents and Appellants. Civ.
• Court: North Dakota Supreme Court

Page 379

222 N.W.2d 379

Ivan L. O'BRIEN, Claimant and Appellee, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU and Great Plains Supply Company, Respondents and Appellants.

Civ. No. 9033.

Supreme Court of North Dakota.

Oct. 10, 1974.

Syllabus by the Court

1. Section 28--32--19, N.D.C.C., controls the scope of judicial review of an administrative agency's decision. The limitations upon judicial review therein apply equally to all reviewing courts.

2. The 'clearly erroneous' criterion of Rule 52(a), N.D.R.Civ.P., has no application to judicial review of the findings of fact of an administrative agency where such findings of fact are made pursuant to the North Dakota Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Chapter 28--32, N.D.C.C.

3. In reviewing an administrative agency's findings of fact rendered pursuant to the North Dakota Administrative Agencies Practice Act, the scope of judicial review, in both the district court and the Supreme Court, is limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the administrative agency's findings of fact.

4. Test of whether 'substantial evidence' supports an administrative agency's findings of fact is met when the supporting evidence is sufficient to reasonably support the findings of fact when reviewed in light of the entire administrative record.

5. Where one physician declines to state an opinion as to medical causation due to lack of medical expertise in the medical field in question, and another physician says that he lacks sufficient information to medically diagnose etiology of medical condition, their evidence is not the 'substantial evidence' necessary to support administrative agency's decision, since such medical opinion, without more, lacks probative value in that it neither tends to prove nor to disprove the relevant medical question in issue.

6. Under the facts in case, the findings of fact of the administrative agency are not supported by substantial evidence.

Traynor & Rutten, Devils Lake, for claimant and appellee.

David L. Evans and Leonell W. Fraase, Sp. Asst. Attys. Gen., Bismarck, for N. D. Workmen's Compensation Bureau, respondent and appellant.

Pringle & Herigstad, Minot, for Great Plains Supply Company, respondent and appellant.

VOGEL, Judge.

We quote from the appellant Great Plains Supply Company's statement of the case:

'This is an appeal from an order of the District Court, Second Judicial District, Towner County, reversing the decision of the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, Case No. 207,111, and holding that Claimant is entitled to additional workmen's compensation benefits for the cerebral vascular hemorrhage suffered by the Appellee on January 15, 1972.

'Claimant had a history of hypertension, with medical treatment for it since 1968. In his work as a carpenter, he sustained an injury on October 5, 1971. while employed by Great Plains Supply Company. While working on a pole barn near Rock Lake, North Dakota, Claimant slipped and fell from the roof of the pole barn sustaining an injury to the low back and a contusion to his kidneys.

'Claimant was permitted by his attending physician to return to work in late December of 1971. On January 15, 1972, while at home and not at work, Claimant had a cerebral vascular hemorrhage which has disabled him completely. His attending physician, Dr. Dvid A. Rinn, M.D., testified that Mr. O'Brien will never be able to lead a productive life again.

'The North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau denied Claimant's claim for benefits resulting from his cerebral vascular hemorrhage sustained on January 15, 1972 because it found no causal connection with Claimant's injury on October 5, 1971.

'The District Court for the Second Judicial District, Towner County, reversed the Bureau's decision, holding that the preponderance of the evidence established a proximate and causal connection between the industrial accident and the subsequent cerebral hemorrhage, that the Bureau's Findings of Fact was not supported by substantial evidence, and that the Bureau's decision was not in accordance with law.

'Appellant, Great Plains Supply Company, as the employer, appeals this decision of the District Court to the North Dakota Supreme Court. The North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau has joined in the appeal.'

We first make note of the limited nature of our review. The appellants urge that the district court cannot substitute its judgment for that of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau, and the appellee responds that the district court had a duty to make an independent judgment and was not obligated to be a 'rubber stamp.' As generalities, both statements are correct.

Where the decision of the administrative agency has been reviewed by the district court and an appeal is taken to this court, we do not follow the 'clearly erroneous' rule of Rule 52(a), North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure. Instead, we follow the specific statutory guidelines contained in the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Chapter 28--32, N.D.C.C., and particularly Section 28--32--19, which were not superseded by the Rules of Civil Procedure. (See Rule 86(b), N.D.R.Civ.P.) Section 28--32--19 provides that the trial court, to which the action of the administrative agency is appealed,

'shall affirm the decision of the agency unless it shall find that such decision or determination is not in accordance with law, or that it is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant, or that any of the provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before the agency, or that the rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing, or that the findings of fact made by the agency are not supported by the evidence, or that the conclusions and decision of the agency are not supported by its findings of fact.'

We have decided several times, most recently in Suedel v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 218 N.W.2d 164 (N.D.1974), that the scope of our review of an administrative agency's findings of fact is the same as that of the district court and is

'. . . limited to determining whether there is substantial evidence to support the administrative agency's findings of fact.' (Quoted from Haggart v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 171 N.W.2d 104, 105 (N.D.1969).)

Questions of law are fully reviewable and conclusions of law are not fortified by the 'clearly erroneous' rule. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co. v. Board of Commissioners of City of Fargo, 211 N.W.2d 399 (N.D.1973); Ferguson v. Ferguson, 202 N.W.2d 760 (N.D.1972).

With these rules in mind, we examine the sufficiency of the evidence and the legal questions raised by the appeal.

Mr. O'Brien suffered from hypertension which pre-existed his employment with Great Plains. The question before us is whether his work-connected activities aggravated his pre-existing hypertension so as to cause the cardiovascular accident which disabled him.

On October 5, 1971, he was injured at work in a fall. He suffered a low-back injury. He was hospitalized several weeks under the care of Dr. Rinn. It was found that O'Brien had a contusion of the kidney, the existence of which injury is not disputed. He was off work from October 5 to December 27, when he returned to work. During December, prior to his return to work, the objective signs of kidney injury such as blood in the urine, disappeared, and an X-ray was negative.

On January 12, O'Brien felt unwell and stayed home, and he did the same on January 14. His stroke, or cardiovascular accident,...