Thompson v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 20050392.
| Decision Date | 31 March 2006 |
| Docket Number | No. 20050392.,20050392. |
| Citation | 2006 ND 69,712 N.W.2d 309 |
| Parties | Steven THOMPSON, Claimant and Appellant v. WORKFORCE SAFETY AND INSURANCE, Thermal Line Windows, Inc., Appellee and Respondent. |
| Court | North Dakota Supreme Court |
Stephen D. Little, Dietz & Little Lawyers, Bismarck, N.D., for claimant and appellant.
Lawrence E. King, Special Assistant Attorney General, Bismarck, N.D., for appellee.
[¶ 1] Steven Thompson appeals from a judgment affirming an order issued by Workforce Safety and Insurance ("WSI") denying him further benefits. We affirm.
[¶ 2] Thompson was employed as a window assembler. In September 2003, he was swinging a mallet during assembly of a window and felt a sudden pain in his right shoulder and arm. The pain subsided while Thompson was at rest but immediately reoccurred when Thompson returned to work.
[¶ 3] Approximately one week after the initial injury, Thompson sought treatment for his shoulder and arm pain. He reported no prior problems. This physician assessed the injury as "right shoulder pain" but was unsure of its origin, so Thompson was referred to a different physician for a consultation. Thompson again reported no prior pain or injuries and was prescribed medication and physical therapy.
[¶ 4] WSI accepted Thompson's claim in October 2003 and paid benefits for his right shoulder injury. Continued treatment revealed Thompson had a right rotator cuff tear and abnormalities of the cervical spine on the right side. He was referred to a neurosurgeon and again reported a lack of prior problems.
[¶ 5] WSI notified Thompson in November 2003 that it was not liable for and would not pay for any treatment or condition related to his cervical spine. The letter indicated the procedure for reconsideration, but Thompson did not appeal the decision. After Thompson received a final denial letter in February 2004, he sought reconsideration.
[¶ 6] WSI obtained Thompson's prior medical and chiropractic records to verify the lack of preexisting problems or conditions in Thompson's cervical spine. The medical records showed Thompson had repeatedly sought treatment for his neck, back, and right shoulder, including several instances of spontaneous pain in the area, as well as a head and neck problem that required 34 chiropractic treatments in the year preceding his injury.
[¶ 7] Thompson's neurosurgeon, after being informed of some of Thompson's prior conditions, maintained that it was likely Thompson's current pain and cervical spine abnormalities were caused by his work-related injury. WSI's medical director attributed Thompson's current problems to pre-existing conditions. Following a hearing, Thompson's Temporary Total Disability benefits were terminated in June 2004.
[¶ 8] Thompson appealed WSI's decision to the district court, which affirmed. Thompson appeals to this Court from the district court judgment, alleging he showed with reasonable medical certainty that his cervical spine condition was substantially related to his September 2003 work injury.
[¶ 9] Decisions of administrative agencies are reviewed in accordance with N.D.C.C. § 28-32-46, which requires:
A judge of the district court must review an appeal from the determination of an administrative agency based only on the record filed with the court. After a hearing, the filing of briefs, or other disposition of the matter as the judge may reasonably require, the court must affirm the order of the agency unless it finds that any of the following are present:
1. The order is not in accordance with the law.
2. The order is in violation of the constitutional rights of the appellant.
3. The provisions of this chapter have not been complied with in the proceedings before the agency.
4. The rules or procedure of the agency have not afforded the appellant a fair hearing.
5. The findings of fact made by the agency are not supported by a preponderance of the evidence.
6. The conclusions of law and order of the agency are not supported by its findings of fact.
7. The findings of fact made by the agency do not sufficiently address the evidence presented to the agency by the appellant.
8. The conclusions of law and order of the agency do not sufficiently explain the agency's rationale for not adopting any contrary recommendations by a hearing officer or an administrative law judge.
On appeal, we review the decision of the agency, not the decision of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Huwe v. Workforce Safety and Ins.
...[¶ 10] WSI has the responsibility to weigh the credibility of medical evidence and resolve conflicting medical opinions. Thompson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2006 ND 69, ¶ 11, 712 N.W.2d 309; Barnes v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2003 ND 141, ¶ 20, 668 N.W.2d 290; Negaard-Cooley v. North Dakot......
-
Anderson v. Workforce Safety & Ins.
...have determined that the factual conclusions reached were proved by the weight of the evidence from the entire record.” Thompson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2006 ND 69, ¶ 9, 712 N.W.2d 309 ; Power Fuels, Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214, 220 (N.D.1979). Here the evidence in the record allows W......
-
Across Big Sky Flow Testing, LLC v. Workforce Safety & Ins.
...725 N.W.2d 204. It is the ALJ's duty to weigh evidence and resolve conflicting medical opinions in making its findings. Thompson v. Workforce Safety and Ins., 2006 ND 69, ¶ 11, 712 N.W.2d 309. [¶ 10] Big Sky asserts no evidence exists and no expert opinion suggests Bergsing's death was caus......
-
Shotbolt v. N.D. Workforce Safety & Ins.
...medical evidence and resolves conflicting medical opinions, and this Court will not re-weigh the evidence on appeal. See Thompson v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2006 ND 69, ¶ 11, 712 N.W.2d [¶ 29] Here, the ALJ found that Dr. McMaster, an internal medicine specialist, lacked the background or ......