Opinion ID: 2229024
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Present denial of future benefits

Text: The Bureau's order in this case is too broad. By denying all future benefits, it goes beyond denying the vocational rehabilitation benefits presently sought by Lass. The findings of fact about Lass' present medical condition and his ability to work do not support a denial of benefits in the future. Thus, the conclusions and decision of the Bureau are not supported by its findings of fact. Section 28-32-19(6), N.D.C.C. Also, the order is too broad because it precludes benefits in the future, to which Lass might otherwise be entitled, based upon a change in his medical condition. It is thus not in accordance with the law. Section 28-32-19(1), N.D.C.C. Section 65-05-04, N.D.C.C., provides the Bureau with continuing jurisdiction to review awards and end, diminish, or increase the compensation previously awarded, or, if compensation has been refused or discontinued, ... award compensation. We agree with Professor Larson's observation that such a provision: is a recognition of the obvious fact that, no matter how competent a commission's diagnosis of claimant's condition and earning prospects at the time of hearing may be, that condition may later change markedly for the worse, or may improve, or may even clear up altogether. 3 Larson's Workmen's Compensation Law § 81.10, p. 15-528 (1983). However, the Bureau argues that: The general principles of res judicata in N.D.C.C. § 65-05-03 foreclose multiple appeals on the same issue by a claimant. N.D.C.C. § 65-05-04 was expressly intended to foreclose multiple appeals on the subject of a claimant's disability. We disagree. Section 65-05-03, N.D.C.C., provides in part:  65-05-03. Jurisdiction of bureau to hear questions within its jurisdictionFinality of determination. The bureau shall have full power and authority to hear and determine all questions within its jurisdiction, and its decisions, except as provided in chapter 65-10, shall be final and shall be entitled to the same faith and credit as a judgment of a court of record.... The res judicata effect of a Bureau decision is somewhat limited. In Geo. E. Haggert, Inc. v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 171 N.W.2d 104 (N.D.1969), this court determined that the authority provided in § 65-05-04, N.D.C.C., to review and modify awards is not limited to a consideration of a change in the claimant's condition. We held that a 1962 award was not res judicata of any issue in a hearing held upon the Bureau's granting of a petition for rehearing of a 1963 award and that the case was before the Bureau just as though those issues were being faced for the first time. Id., at 108. An unappealed Bureau decision is res judicata unless the Bureau reopens a claim. The res judicata effect of a Bureau decision extends only to matters adjudicable at the time of that decision. Thus, absent a reopening, an unappealed decision on an employee's present medical condition is final and res judicata of his medical condition at that time. Such a decision, however, is not res judicata of his future medical condition, which was not adjudicable at the time of that decision. Thus, a present denial of benefits may not preclude subsequent awards based upon a change in the employee's medical condition. The purpose of the Workmen's Compensation Act is to provide for workmen injured in hazardous employments, and for their families and dependents, sure and certain relief. Section 65-01-01, N.D. C.C. We construe the Workmen's Compensation Act liberally in favor of an injured workman [Syllabus 4, Boettner v. Twin City Constr. Co., 214 N.W.2d 635 (N.D. 1974)] so its benefit provisions can be extended to all those who can fairly be brought within them [ Gregory v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, 369 N.W.2d 119, 122 (N.D.1985)]. So construing §§ 65-05-03, 65-05-04, and 65-10-01, N.D.C.C., we conclude that if a claimant presents the Bureau with a request for benefits based upon a change in the claimant's medical condition, the Bureau must exercise its jurisdiction and consider the request on its merits and the Bureau's decision thereon is subject to appeal. To the extent that the Bureau has attempted to preclude any claim for benefits in the future due to a change in Lass' condition, its order is not in accordance with the law. Section 28-32-19(1), N.D.C.C. To the extent that the Bureau has attempted to insulate from judicial review any future decision upon a claim for benefits based upon a change in Lass' condition, its order is ineffective. A bureau decision on review of a prior award pursuant to a subsequent application based upon a change in the employee's condition may be appealed to the courts. Section 65-10-01, N.D.C.C.; Jones v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation Bureau, supra . The judgment is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and VANDE WALLE, GIERKE and MESCHKE, JJ., concur.