Filed 3/19/20 by Clerk of Supreme Court

IN THE SUPREME COURT

STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

2020 ND 61

SAEJ Enterprises, LLC, Appellant

v.

State of North Dakota, by and through

Workforce Safety and Insurance, Appellee

No. 20190370

Appeal from the District Court of Burleigh County, South Central Judicial 

District, the Honorable Gail Hagerty, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Per Curiam.

Jacqueline S. Anderson, Fargo, ND, for appellee; submitted on brief.

Dean J. Haas, Bismarck, ND, for appellant; submitted on brief.
2

SAEJ Enterprises v. WSI

No. 20190370

Per Curiam.

[¶1] SAEJ Enterprises appeals a district court judgment affirming an 

administrative law judge (“ALJ”) decision that affirmed a Workforce Safety 

and Insurance (“WSI”) order determining SAEJ is an employer and liable for 

workers’ compensation premium. SAEJ argues the ALJ did not reasonably 

determine the workers serving as fill-in (relief) pumpers were SAEJ’s 

employees, rather than independent contractors. 

[¶2] “Whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee is a 

mixed question of fact and law.” Workforce Safety & Ins. v. Larry’s On Site 

Welding, 2014 ND 81, ¶ 14, 845 N.W.2d 310 (quoting Matter of BKU Enters., 

Inc., 513 N.W.2d 382, 387 (N.D.1994)). “In reviewing a mixed question of fact 

and law, the underlying predicate facts are treated as findings of fact, and the 

conclusion whether those facts meet the legal standard is a question of law.” 

Larry’s On Site Welding, at ¶ 14. “Whether an employer has retained the right 

to direct and control the services performed by workers is a finding of fact.” Id.

(quoting BKU Enters., at 387); see also Workforce Safety & Ins. v. Questar 

Energy Servs., Inc., 2017 ND 241, ¶ 9, 902 N.W.2d 757. Here, the ALJ made 

specific findings on the predicate facts and considered the common-law test 

and twenty factors under N.D. Admin. Code § 92-01-02-49(1) to determine

whether a person is an independent contractor or an employee. See N.D.C.C. 

§ 65-01-03(1).

[¶3] On this record, the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by a 

preponderance of the evidence, in that a reasoning mind reasonably could have 

determined the findings were proven by the weight of the evidence from the 

entire record; and the ALJ’s conclusions of law and decision are supported by 

its findings of fact. See N.D.C.C. §§ 28-32-46(5), (6), and 28-32-49; Power Fuels, 

Inc. v. Elkin, 283 N.W.2d 214, 220 (N.D. 1979). We summarily affirm under 

N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(5) and (7); see Larry’s On Site Welding, 2014 ND 81, ¶¶

1, 21-23, 845 N.W.2d 310 (affirming ALJ’s order finding welders were 

independent contractors when its findings of fact were supported by a 
3

preponderance of the evidence and its conclusions of law were supported by the 

facts); see also Questar Energy Servs., 2017 ND 241, ¶¶ 1, 10, 16-18, 902 

N.W.2d 757 (affirming ALJ’s decision reclassifying employees when its 

underlying factual conclusions were supported by a preponderance of the 

evidence and its legal conclusion of the employees’ classification was supported 

by its factual findings).

[¶4] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.

Jerod E. Tufte

Daniel J. Crothers

Lisa Fair McEvers

Gerald W. VandeWalle