Knutson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau

Decision Date28 March 1963
Docket NumberNo. 8039,8039
PartiesLuverne C. KNUTSON, Respondent, v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION BUREAU, Appellant.
CourtNorth Dakota Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court

1. An appeal to the district court from a decision of the Workmen's Compensation Bureau must be taken in the manner provided by the Administrative Agencies Practice Act, Section 65-10-01, N.D.C.C., and the only evidence that may be considered by the district court is the record made and certified by the Bureau. Section 28-32-19, N.D.C.C.

Leslie R. Burgum, Atty. Gen., and Myron E. Bothun, Asst. Atty. Gen., Bismarck, for appellant.

Day, Stokes, Vaaler & Gillig, Grand Forks, for respondent.

TEIGEN, Judge.

This litigation arises out of an injury sustained on September 15, 1959, by Luverne C. Knutson, claimant and respondent, while employed by Otto Eickhof & Sons, Inc., general construction contractors. The employer was covered by the workmen's compensation fund. The injury occurred when the claimant, in the course of his employment, fell 20 to 25 feet to the ground from the deck on an overpass being constructed across Interstate Highway No. 94 at a point about three miles west from West Fargo, North Dakota. The claimant sustained multiple lacerations and bruises about the head, left shoulder and right hip. He also dislocated his right third finger. On September 18, 1959, he filed a claim with the Workmen's Compensation Bureau (hereinafter referred to as the Bureau) for an award on account of the injuries. The claim was accepted and the claimant was paid for temporary total disability to the eve of January 10, 1961, a period of 69 weeks and one day, plus dependency allowance for three children, in the amount of $3,330.28. In addition thereto, the Bureau paid medical, hospital and miscellaneous expenses in the amount of $1,383.59. Later, supplementary awards were made for additional medical and travel. On February 6, 1961, the Bureau made a supplemental award to the claimant for 20% permanent partial disability due to 'loss of use of arm, at shoulder, left,' for a period of 50 weeks, commencing on the morning of January 11, 1961, to the even of December 26, 1961 with compensation payable at the rate of $31.50 per week, for a total sum of $1,575 to be paid at the rate of $126 every four weeks pursuant to Sections 65-05-13 and 65-05-14, N.D.C.C.

The plaintiff, feeling aggrieved, appealed to the district court from the Bureau's order for supplemental award dated February 6, 1961. The case was tried to the court on December 21, 1961, in the County of Grand Forks. No memorandum opinion was written but on February 26, 1962, the district court entered its findings of fact, conclusions of law and order for judgment. Judgment was entered providing the claimant was entitled to an award of $31.50 per week for a period of 300 weeks commencing January 11, 1961. It based its award on Section 65-05-12, N.D.C.C., and the finding that the claimant had sustained 60% permanent partial disability.

From the judgment an appeal was taken to this court by the Bureau and a trial de novo is demanded.

The appellant argues three errors:

'I. That the District Court erred in receiving original testimony and evidence on behalf of the respondent in that the Court lacked original jurisdiction under Sections 65-10-01 and 28-32-19 of the North Dakota Century Code.

'II. That on the evidence, the District Court erred in allowing the respondent to participate in the North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Fund to a degree greater than that allowed by Section 65-05-13 of the North Dakota Century Code.

'III. That it was error as a matter of law, for the District Court to determine the compensation benefits under Section 65-05-12 of the North Dakota Century Code in that such determination was contrary to the intent of Section 65-05-14 of the North Dakota Century Code.'

By stipulation of the parties, the Bureau certified to the district court an abstract of the record contained in the Bureau's file agreed to be pertinent to the appeal. In addition, and over the objection of the Bureau, the district court took additional evidence in the form of testimony.

The main issue in this case is whether additional evidence may be received by the district court on appeal from a decision of the Bureau under Section 65-10-01, N.D.C.C. The salient part of that statute reads as follows:

'Such appeal shall be taken in the manner provided in chapter 28-32 of the title Judicial Procedure, Civil.'

The Workmen's Compensation Bureau is an administrative agency of the State, Chapter 65-02, N.D.C.C., and is maintained for the administration of the statutes on workmen's compensation. It has exclusive and primary jurisdiction over injuries resulting from hazardous employment and all jurisdiction of the courts of the State over such causes are abolished except as is otherwise provided in the law. Section 65-01-01, N.D.C.C. It has full power and authority to hear and determine all questions within its jurisdiction and its decision shall be final and entitled to the same faith and credit as a judgment of the court of record, except a claimant may appeal therefrom to the district court. Section 65-05-03, N.D.C.C.; Gotchy v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 49 N.D. 915, 194 N.W. 663; and State v. Broadway Investment Co. (N.D.), 85 N.W.2d 251. An appeal from a decision of the Bureau to the district court 'shall be taken in the manner provided in chapter 28-32 of the title Judicial Procedure, Civil.' Section 65-10-01, supra, Chapter 28-32 of the title 'Judicial Procedure, Civil,' is the Administrative Agencies Practice Act and Section 28-32-17 thereof provides that when an appeal is taken, the administrative agency

'shall prepare and file in the office of the clerk of the district court in which the appeal is pending the original or a certified copy of the entire proceedings before the agency, or such abstract of the record as may be agreed upon and stipulated by the parties, including the pleadings, notices, transcripts of all testimony taken, exhibits, reports of memoranda, exceptions or objections, briefs, findings of fact, proposed findings of fact submitted to the agency, and the decision of the administrative agency in such proceeding.'

Section 28-32-19, N.D.C.C., provides:

'The court shall try and hear an appeal from the determination of an administrative agency without a jury and the evidence considered by the court shall be confined to the record filed with the court. * * *'

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Larsen v. Commission on Medical Competency
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 3 Noviembre 1998
    ...the district court nor this Court may consider evidence not submitted to the agency. Id. (citing Knutson v. North Dakota Workmen's Comp. Bureau, 120 N.W.2d 880, 882-83 (N.D.1963)). ¶43 Regardless of whether the deposition testimony is relevant, Larsen failed to prove reasonable grounds for ......
  • Flink v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 20 Enero 1998
    ...We have reversed the judgment of a district court when it relied on material not in the record. See Knutson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 120 N.W.2d 880, 883 (N.D.1963). We recently sanctioned an attorney, personally, for attempting to rely on materials not in the record. S......
  • Geo. E. Haggart, Inc. v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 26 Septiembre 1969
    ...should be noted that as recently as 1963 this court recognized the Bureau's continuing jurisdiction. Knutson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 120 N.W.2d 880, 883 (N.D.1963). There appears to be nothing in our statute and no case law in our state which limits the Bureau to reop......
  • Sales and Use Tax Determination by State Tax Com'r, In re
    • United States
    • North Dakota Supreme Court
    • 31 Diciembre 1974
    ...evidence taken before it. It is the stipulation of the parties which distinguishes Langer v. State From Knutson v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 120 N.W.2d 880 (N.D.1963), which held that it was improper for the district court to take additional evidence over the objection of ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT