Jensen v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
Decision Date | 03 June 1997 |
Docket Number | No. 960351,960351 |
Citation | 1997 ND 107,563 N.W.2d 112 |
Parties | Harlen G. JENSEN, Appellant, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKERS COMPENSATION BUREAU, Appellee. Civil |
Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Mark G. Schneider, Schneider, Schneider & Schneider, Fargo, for appellant.
Douglas W. Gigler, Special Assistant Attorney General, Fargo, for appellee.
¶1 Harlen G. Jensen appealed a judgment affirming a Workers Compensation Bureau decision ordering that under § 65-05-08(1), N.D.C.C. (1989), he "became eligible for the reinstatement of disability benefits effective April 17, 1991." We hold the Bureau erred in applying § 65-05-08(1), N.D.C.C. (1989), to Jensen's request for resumption of disability benefits because it abrogated his vested right to resumption of benefits. We reverse and remand.
¶2 Jensen injured his back at work on January 12, 1965. The Bureau accepted liability and paid disability benefits from January 13, 1965, through June 1, 1965. Jensen suffered another work injury in 1967 and the Bureau awarded benefits from June 1, 1967, through June 7, 1967. Jensen was hospitalized on February 16, 1981, and underwent a partial hemilaminectomy as a result of the 1965 injury. Jensen returned to work on October 15, 1981. In 1982, the Bureau awarded Jensen a lump-sum disability payment of $7,677.59 for the period from February 16, 1981, through October 14, 1981.
¶3 Jensen recovered damages from another party for his 1965 work injury in a third-party personal injury action. The Bureau exercised its right of subrogation under § 65-01-09, N.D.C.C., and, on December 3, 1984, issued a resolution suspending future benefits: 1
"BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Bureau suspend any and all future benefits to which the claimant might be entitled under the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Act as a consequence of the injury of January 12, 1965, until such future benefits would be equal to or exceed the sum of $51,720.10."
¶4 In 1984, while working as a satellite television installer in Minnesota, Jensen had neck and arm pain. On September 7, 1985, Jensen had a C5-C6 and inferior C4 hemilaminectomy. On December 19, 1989, the Bureau denied benefits, concluding that Jensen failed to prove his 1984 neck problems were causally related to the 1965 or 1967 injuries.
¶5 On May 17, 1991, Jensen's attorney wrote the Bureau, asserting "that the Bureau's entire suspended benefit has been liquidated and that Mr. Jensen is, once again, entitled to temporary total disability benefits." He also said Jensen had not worked since August 26, 1985, and is totally and permanently disabled. He enclosed with the letter a copy of a July 30, 1987, decision by a Social Security Administration Administrative Law Judge finding Jensen disabled and entitled to disability insurance benefits, commencing August 26, 1985.
¶6 The Bureau treated the May 17, 1991, letter as "a written reapplication for disability benefits." 2 In a March 18, 1994, order, the Bureau found:
On June 24, 1994, the Bureau issued an amended order finding that, as of March 15, 1994, the amount of suspended benefits was $2,256.11. The Bureau also found that the suspended benefits had been exhausted and Jensen was eligible for medical expenses and disability benefits.
¶7 After a hearing at Jensen's request, the Bureau issued another order on June 13, 1995. The Bureau found:
The Bureau concluded that Jensen "is not entitled to reinstatement of eligibility for disability benefits from the Bureau prior to April 17, 1991."
¶8 The district court affirmed the Bureau's order. On appeal, Jensen contends the Bureau erred in applying § 65-05-08(1), N.D.C.C. (1989), to limit his eligibility for disability benefits. He argues the statute 3 in effect prior to 1989 applies because he was entitled to benefits prior to 1989.
¶9 "The interpretation of a statute is a question of law, which is fully reviewable by this court." Koch Oil Co. v. Hanson, 536 N.W.2d 702, 706 (N.D.1995). Because this appeal presents only a question of law, §§ 28-32-19 and 28-32-21, N.D.C.C., require us to affirm the Bureau's order unless it "is not in accordance with the law." Section 28-32-19(1), N.D.C.C.
¶10 The Bureau contends § 65-05-08(1), N.D.C.C. (1989), governs Jensen's request for resumption of disability benefits, and precludes an award of benefits commencing more than thirty days before the date of his reapplication.
¶11 "Unless otherwise provided, the statutes in effect on the date of an injury govern workers' compensation benefits." Thompson v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 490 N.W.2d 248, 251 (N.D.1992). Jensen's entitlement to benefits ordinarily would be governed by the statutes in effect at the time of his injury. The language in § 65-05-08(5), N.D.C.C. (1989), stated that "[t]he provisions of this section apply to any disability claim asserted against the fund on or after July 1, 1989, irrespective of injury date." That language indicates the requirements and limitations of § 65-05-08, N.D.C.C. (1989), apply to injuries occurring before the statute was amended in 1989. However, "it is well established that statutory amendments may not operate retrospectively to abrogate contractual or vested rights." Thompson, 490 N.W.2d at 251. This court has "defined a vested...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gregory v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
...amendments may not operate retrospectively to abrogate a vested right or a valid obligation. E.g., Jensen v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1997 ND 107, pp 11-12, 563 N.W.2d 112; Thompson v. North Dakota Workers' Compensation Bureau, 490 N.W.2d 248, 251 (N.D.1992). If the 1995 ca......
-
Drayton v. Workforce Safety and Ins.
...or future enjoyment that does not depend upon an event that is uncertain. Sjostrand, at ¶ 14; Saari, at ¶ 10; Jensen v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 107, ¶ 11, 563 N.W.2d 112. A common thread connecting our cases about retroactive application of statutes and vested rights is t......
-
Global Financial Services, Inc. v. Duttenhefner, 970215
...would not alter the result. Ohio Farmers Ins. Co. v. Dakota Agency, 551 N.W.2d 564, 565 (N.D.1996). As Jensen v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 107, p 9, 563 N.W.2d 112, explained, interpretation of a statute presents a question of law fully reviewable by this ¶6 Congress enacte......
-
Robertson v. ND WORKERS COMPENSATION BUREAU
...2000 ND 135, ¶ 12, 613 N.W.2d 490; Wanstrom v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 2000 ND 17, ¶ 7, 604 N.W.2d 860; Jensen v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 1997 ND 107, ¶ 11, 563 N.W.2d 112; Thompson v. North Dakota Workers' Comp. Bureau, 490 N.W.2d 248, 251 (N.D.1992). See N.D.C.C. § 1......