Larson v. N. D. Workforce Safety & Ins.
| Decision Date | 08 June 2022 |
| Docket Number | 20210333 |
| Citation | 975 N.W.2d 552 |
| Parties | Christine LARSON, Appellant v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKFORCE SAFETY AND INSURANCE, Appellee |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Lawrence E. King (argued) and Nathan J. Svihovec (appeared), Bismarck, ND, for appellant.
Jacqueline S. Anderson, Special Assistant Attorney General, Fargo, ND, for appellee.
[¶1] Christine Larson, doing business as Active Nutrition, appealed from a judgment entered after the district court ordered Larson's appeal be dismissed and denied her request for a writ of mandamus. We conclude Larson did not appeal from an appealable order and the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying her request for a writ of mandamus. We affirm.
[¶2] In a notice of decision dated January 27, 2021, Workforce Safety & Insurance ("WSI") informed Larson that it had determined Active Nutrition is an employer subject to N.D.C.C. tit. 65, the Workforce Safety and Insurance Act, and that Active Nutrition was required to submit all earned wages for all employees for the previous four years and pay premiums, assessments, penalties, and interest accrued. The notice of decision also advised Larson that she could appeal the decision by "[s]ubmit[ting] a written request to WSI within 30 days to have the decision reconsidered[.]"
[¶3] On February 25, 2021, Larson mailed a written request for reconsideration to WSI. WSI received the request on March 1, 2021. On March 10, 2021, WSI sent Larson notice it received her request for reconsideration but the request was not timely. The notice also informed Larson that WSI's decision dated January 27, 2021 was final.
[¶4] On May 27, 2021, Larson sent WSI a second request for reconsideration. Larson argued her first request for reconsideration was timely because WSI's notice of decision was served by regular mail and therefore three additional days should be added to the time computation under N.D.R.Civ.P. 6(e). On June 8, 2021, WSI informed Larson it had received her second request, the request was not timely, and the decision was final.
[¶5] Larson filed a notice of appeal and specification of errors in the district court, appealing from "WSI's June 8, 2021 determination." Larson argued her request for reconsideration was timely. She alternatively requested a writ of mandamus determining her request for reconsideration was timely and directing WSI to proceed as prescribed under N.D.C.C. ch. 65-04 and review the merits of her request for reconsideration.
[¶6] WSI moved for dismissal, arguing the district court did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal because Larson did not appeal from an appealable order. WSI asserted Larson did not comply with statutory procedures for requesting reconsideration of WSI's notice of decision, the decision was final, and the decision may not be appealed. WSI also requested the court deny Larson's request for a writ of mandamus. Larson opposed WSI's motion.
[¶7] After a hearing, the district court granted WSI's motion to dismiss the appeal and denied Larson's request for a writ of mandamus. The court concluded it did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. The court also concluded there was no basis in fact or law to support Larson's request for a writ of mandamus and Larson has no legal right to a writ of mandamus.
[¶8] On appeal, Larson does not clearly argue that the district court erred in dismissing her appeal or that she appealed from an appealable order. Larson instead argues her request for reconsideration of WSI's decision was timely filed and WSI should issue a final agency order on the merits. WSI contends the district court properly dismissed the appeal because Larson did not appeal from an appealable order and the court lacked jurisdiction.
[¶9] The district court dismissed Larson's appeal, concluding it did not have jurisdiction. The court determined Larson was attempting to appeal from an unappealable informal notice of decision and Larson did not comply with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42. The court explained WSI took action on the request for reconsideration, it advised Larson her request was not timely, WSI's January 27, 2021 decision was final under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-32(2), and the appeal to the district court was untimely.
[¶10] "Appeals to the district court from decisions in administrative proceedings are statutory in nature and are not matters of original jurisdiction, but involve the exercise of appellate jurisdiction conferred by statute." Inwards v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins. , 2014 ND 163, ¶ 9, 851 N.W.2d 693 ; see also Ellis v. N.D. Workforce Safety and Ins. , 2020 ND 14, ¶ 7, 937 N.W.2d 513 (). The appellant must satisfy the statutory requirements for an appeal for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction. Inwards , at ¶ 9. The issue of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law when jurisdictional facts are not in dispute, and the issue is reviewed de novo on appeal. Ellis , at ¶ 7.
[¶11] Section 65-04-32, N.D.C.C.1 , provides procedural rules for an employer to dispute a decision by WSI regarding the fund and premium payments thereto issued under N.D.C.C. ch. 65-04, stating:
An employer's appeal of a decision issued by WSI under chapter 65-04 is governed by N.D.C.C. chs. 65-10 and 28-32. N.D.C.C. § 65-04-32(6) ; N.D.C.C. § 65-10-01. Section 28-32-42, N.D.C.C., governs appeals from an agency decision and states, "Any party to any proceeding heard by an administrative agency, except when the order of the administrative agency is declared final by any other statute, may appeal from the order within thirty days after notice of the order has been given as required by section 28-32-39."
[¶12] Section 28-32-42(1), N.D.C.C., authorizes appeals from a final agency order, except when the order of the administrative agency is declared final by any other statute. Section 65-04-32, N.D.C.C., provides the procedure for an employer to dispute WSI's decision. Section 65-04-32(2), N.D.C.C., states the notice of decision based on an informal internal review becomes final and may not be reheard or appealed if there is not a timely and sufficient request for reconsideration. Therefore, the notice of decision is final and the employer may not appeal if the employer did not timely request reconsideration.
[¶13] Here, Larson petitioned for reconsideration of the notice of decision based on an informal internal review. WSI informed Larson her petition for reconsideration was untimely and the notice of decision was final. Larson filed a second petition for reconsideration. In a letter dated June 8, 2021, WSI denied Larson's second request, explaining it was untimely and the decision was final. Larson appealed to the district court from WSI's "June 8, 2021 determination."
[¶14] Under N.D.C.C. § 65-04-32(2), WSI's January 27, 2021 decision was final and cannot be appealed. The June 8, 2021 determination was not an appealable order under N.D.C.C. §§ 28-32-42 and 65-04-32. We conclude the district court did not err in determining it did not have jurisdiction and dismissing Larson's appeal.
[¶15] Larson alternatively argues, if she did not appeal from an appealable order, a writ of mandamus should be issued directing WSI to find her request for reconsideration was timely and to issue a final agency order. She contends her request for reconsideration was timely because she was allowed three additional days to mail her request when N.D.C.C. § 65-04-32(2) and N.D.R.Civ.P. 6(e)(1) are read together.
[¶16] This Court and the district court have the authority to grant writs of mandamus under N.D.C.C. § 32-34-01, which states:
The writ of mandamus may be issued by the supreme and district courts to any inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person to compel the performance of an act which the law specially enjoins as a duty resulting from an office, trust, or station, or to compel the admission of a party to the use and enjoyment of a right or office to which the party is entitled and from which the party is precluded unlawfully by such inferior tribunal, corporation, board, or person.
[¶17] "A petitioner for a writ of mandamus must show there is ‘no plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary cause of the law’ and that they have ‘a clear legal right to the performance of the particular act sought to be compelled by the writ.’ " Motisi...
To continue reading
Request your trial