Court Opinion

ID: 9735261
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 18:07:01.866503+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:56.370338
License: Public Domain

RALPH J. ERICKSTAD, Surrogate Judge,
dissenting.
The majority of this court today rejects the majority opinion in Benson v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 283 N.W.2d 96 (N.D.1979), and applies the rational basis test to uphold the agricultural exclusion in the North Dakota Workers Compensation Act against an equal protection challenge. Because I am convinced the Benson rationale is even more supportable today than when Benson was decided, I respectfully dissent.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

This court has in the past applied three separate standards of review to equal protection claims: strict scrutiny, the intermediate “close correspondence” standard, and the rational basis test. Kadrmas v. Dickinson Public Schools, 402 N.W.2d 897, 902 (N.D.1987), aff'd, 487 U.S. 450, 108 S.Ct. 2481, 101 L.Ed.2d 399 (1988). The standard used in a particular case depends upon the challenged statutory classification and the right allegedly infringed. Kadrmas, supra, 402 N.W.2d at 902. The court today abandons the holding in Benson that an equal protection challenge to the North Dakota Workers Compensation Act’s exclusion for agricultural employees should be governed by the intermediate standard of review. Under the intermediate standard, a statutory classification will be upheld only if it bears a close correspondence to the legislative goals. E.g., Leadbetter v. Rose, 467 N.W.2d 431, 436 (N.D.1991); Kavadas v. Lorenzen, 448 N.W.2d 219, 221 (N.D.1989); Mund v. Rambough, 432 N.W.2d 50, 55 (N.D.1988). This intermediate close correspondence standard applies when a challenged statute infringes upon an “important substantive right.” E.g., B.H. v. K.D., *205506 N.W.2d 368, 375-376 (N.D.1993); In re Adoption of K.A.S., 499 N.W.2d 558, 564 (N.D.1993); Leadbetter v. Rose, supra, 467 N.W.2d at 436; Mund v. Rambough, supra, 432 N.W.2d at 55.
The majority holds that the agricultural exclusion, which prohibits an injured farm worker in Haney’s position from recovering for injuries sustained in the course of farm employment, falls within the ambit of this court’s prior eases applying the rational basis test when a statute regulates “social or economic matters.” I do not view the denial of recovery for personal injuries to be merely a “social or economic matter.” In my view, a statute denying an agricultural employee the right to recover for personal injuries on the same basis as all other employees within this state clearly affects an important substantive right, triggering application of the close correspondence test. Cf. Beckler v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 418 N.W.2d 770, 772 (N.D.1988) (continuing right to Workers Compensation disability benefits is a “property” right protected by the Due Process Clause).
As recently as 1989, in Lee v. Job Service North Dakota, 440 N.W.2d 518 (N.D.1989), this court noted with approval the determination in Benson that workers compensation benefits constitute an important substantive right, mandating application of the close correspondence test. In Lee, supra, 440 N.W.2d at 519, we distinguished between unemployment benefits, which are purely economic, and workers, compensation benefits, which are for personal injury and for which the injured worker has forfeited the right to sue:
“Unemployment benefits are a matter of legislative grace. Section 52-01-06, N.D.C.C. ... They may be contrasted to and differentiated from workers compensation benefits, for which injured workers give up the right to sue for damages arising out of a work-related injury in exchange for ‘sure and certain relief ... regardless of questions of fault’ (§ 65-01-01, N.D.C.C.). Unemployment compensation benefits fall within ‘the field of social welfare and economics.’ Idaho Dept. of Employment v. Smith, 434 U.S. 100, 101, 98 S.Ct. 327, 328, 54 L.Ed.2d 324, 327 (1977). Following the lead of the United States Supreme Court, we have ‘consistently deferred to legislative determinations concerning the desirability of statutory classifications affecting the regulation of economic activity and the distribution of economic benefits’ (Idaho Dept. of Employment v. Smith, supra, 434 U.S. at 101, 98 S.Ct. at 328, 54 L.Ed.2d at 327).”
Lee specifically recognized that the right to recover for personal injuries is an important substantive right, and is in accord with our cases applying the close correspondence test when a party’s right to recover for personal injuries is statutorily limited. See, e.g., Bellemare v. Gateway Builders, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 733 (N.D.1988); Hanson v. Williams County, 389 N.W.2d 319 (N.D.1986).
I agree with the court’s rationale in Lee, and I adhere to the majority’s conclusion in Benson that the agricultural exclusion must be examined within the context of the close correspondence test. As a majority of this court noted in Hanson v. Williams County, supra, 389 N.W.2d at 325, “[w]e are unwilling to view human life and safety as simply a matter of economics.”
Curiously, the majority today argues that Lee supports its conclusion that the rational basis test applies, and even goes so far as to chastise Haney’s reliance upon Lee as “misplaced.” Clearly, it is the majority’s reliance upon Lee that is misplaced.
The majority cites Lee for the proposition that workers compensation benefits are “ ‘a matter of legislative grace,’ ” and that workers compensation benefits “ ‘fall within “the field of social welfare and economies.” ’ ” I read Lee to support the exact opposite conclusion. The Lee court, speaking through Justice Levine and concurred in by all other Justices of that court, made those statements about unemployment compensation benefits, and carefully explained that those benefits are to “be contrasted to and differentiated from workers compensation benefits.” Lee, supra, 440 N.W.2d at 519. Lee does not fairly support the statements in the majority opinion.
*206Furthermore, the majority today states that “[t]he important substantive right involved in the workers compensation scheme is the right to sue for damages, which injured workers were required to give up in exchange for sure and certain relief.” No citation of authority is given- for that statement. The right to sue for damages is not a right granted by the Workers Compensation Act, but exists by virtue of tort law. The important substantive right created by the workers compensation scheme is the right to sure and certain relief, granted in Section 65-01-01, N.D.C.C. The court in Lee clearly recognized as much when it first said that “the right to recover for personal injuries” is an important substantive right, then went on to distinguish workers compensation benefits before holding that unemployment benefits did not involve an important substantive right. Lee, supra, 440 N.W.2d at 519.
Finally, the majority in the instant case attempts to place significance upon the adoption of comparative negligence to bolster its assertion that Lee supports application of the rational basis standard in this ease. Comparative negligence was legislatively adopted in 1973, six years before Benson was decided. The Benson majority did not view the adoption of comparative negligence as weakening the important substantive right of sure and certain relief under the Workers Compensation Act. In spite of the existence of comparative negligence, the Benson court concluded that the right to sure and certain legislatively created relief for personal injuries was an important substantive right, warranting application of the close correspondence test. Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 99. Nothing in today’s majority opinion convinces me that Benson was wrong.

APPLICATION OF CLOSE CORRESPONDENCE TEST

Arguing in support of the statutory classification, the Bureau contends that there is a close correspondence between the agricultural exclusion and the underlying legislative purpose for that exclusion. The Bureau asserts that the Legislature in enacting the agricultural exclusion was concerned with farmers’ ability to absorb the costs of workers compensation premiums. Benson considered and rejected any suggestion that farmers are somehow affected to a greater degree than other employers by the cost of workers compensation premiums. See Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 105-106. The owners of small grocery stores, auto repair shops, and other • retail businesses are also adversely affected by the cost of workers compensation premiums, but the Legislature did not see fit to exclude them. Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution specifically prohibits the granting of privileges to any class which are not granted upon the same terms to all citizens. Any suggestion that agriculture, by its very nature, is to be specially favored1 through statutory classifications runs directly contrary to that constitutional prohibition.
Perhaps more important, however, is the Bureau’s singular focus upon the affect of the statute on farm employers. Although this writer joined Justice VandeWalle, as did a majority of the Justices, and I think properly so on the basis of the law and the facts in Bellemare v. Gateway Builders, Inc., 420 N.W.2d 733 (N.D.1988), at least three Justices participating in the instant case should be interested in reading what the dissent had to say:
“The majority opinion has inverted the analytical instruments for examining such a statute, diminishing the importance of human life and safety and enlarging an unarticulated need for financial tranquility among designers and builders. Hanson began the inspection with a clearer focal point:
“ ‘While there are economic consequences ... underlying the legislation in question, we believe our focus must be on the individuals affected. We are unwilling to view human life and safety as simply a matter of economies. Therefore, we agree ... that the right to *207recover for personal injuries is an important substantive right, [citation omitted.] We conclude that the appropriate standard of review to be applied ... is the intermediate standard or the close correspondence test.’ Hanson, supra, 389 N.W.2d at 325.
“In Hanson, we could not discern a close correspondence between the statutory classification created for makers of products and the stated legislative goals that would justify unequal treatment of some carelessly injured. Accordingly, we concluded that statute of repose violated Art. I, § 21 of our N.D. Constitution.”
Bellemare, supra, 420 N.W.2d at 742 (Meschke, J., concurring and dissenting). As noted in Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 106, in resolving this type of equal protection challenge “we must focus upon both employer and employee and, although some inequality is permissible, we must balance the benefits against the burdens imposed on each class.” In this case we too must balance the denial of a farm worker’s right to recover for personal injuries against the financial burdens that workers compensation premiums would place upon farm employers.2
Balancing those interests in this ease, I am unable to discern any close correspondence between the stated legislative goals and the arbitrary classification excluding farm employees. Article I, Section 21 of our Constitution prohibits granting special privileges to farm employers merely because they are engaged in what has traditionally been a favored vocation in this state. Absent a showing that farm employers will be more disparately affected by the cost of workers compensation premiums than similarly situated non-agrieultural employers, there can be no valid justification for a legislative classification denying recovery to an entire category of injured workers. The result approved today by the majority will prohibit recovery by a worker injured shoveling grain on a farm, while allowing recovery by a worker injured shoveling gravel on a construction site. I can discern no valid legislative purpose in this record to justify that discrimination.
Professor Larson, perhaps the most quoted authority on workers compensation law, has also seriously questioned the various reasons proffered to support the agricultural exclusion:
“Many reasons, of varying degrees of validity, have been given to explain the agricultural exemption. The only one which seems to have much substance is the practical administrative difficulty that would be encountered by hundreds of thousands of small farmers in handling the necessary records, insurance, and accounting. If this is the reason, it ought to follow that the exemption should be confined to small farmers and not at the same time reheve from compensation responsibility the great fruit, truck, sugarcane, dairy, and wheat farms which have much more in common with industry than with old-fashioned dirt farming. With the exceptions mentioned, based on minimum number of employees or the hazardous or mechanical nature of the employment, this all-important distinction has been largely disregarded in the statutes.
“Less convincing is the argument that the farmer cannot, like the manufacturer, add his compensation cost to the price of his product and pass it on to the consumer. This might be true if an isolated state attempted compulsory coverage, but if all *208states extended coverage to farm labor, there would be no competitive disadvantage so far as the domestic market is concerned. As to the disparity between the domestic and world market, that problem already exists, and will not become essentially different because of a slight change in one domestic agricultural cost factor.
“Least convincing of all is the assertion that farm laborers do not need this kind of protection. Whatever the compensation acts may say, agriculture is one of the most hazardous of all occupations. In 1964, of 4,761,000 agricultural workers, 3,000 were fatally injured, while of 17,259,-000 manufacturing employees, the number of fatalities was 2,000.
“It is important to ask what valid reason lies behind the exemption in order to have some guide in construing the notoriously troublesome terms ‘farm’ and ‘agriculture.’ If, as is here suggested, that reason is one of administrative difficulty, one might expect to find that where the difficulty does not exist, due to the virtual industrialization of the agricultural activity, close questions of definition will be resolved in the direction of compensation coverage.”
1C Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law § 53.20 (1993) (Footnote omitted).
The Benson majority also considered and rejected the possible legislative purposes for the agricultural exclusion. Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 104-107. The changes which have ensued in the years since 1979 have strengthened the force of the Benson majority opinion. The face of American agriculture has changed, with small family farms increasingly being replaced by larger, more mechanized, and overall more profitable operations. This well-documented transformation has affected'agriculture in North Dakota just as it has across the country. The argument that the administrative burdens of complying with workers compensation laws and regulations would be an undue hardship on farm employers is belied by the true nature of modern agriculture. The average farmer today is already familiar with administrative paperwork and dealing with bureaucracy, through endless government programs and regulations. Haney’s employer testified that he had to comply with various state and federal laws and regulations, including withholding state and federal income taxes, withholding FICA taxes, and issuing W-2 forms to Haney and the Internal Revenue Service. Any suggestion that farm employers lack the sophistication or business acumen to comply with the requirements of the workers compensation laws is dispelled by the realities of farming in the 1990s.
A further dramatic change has occurred in the national overview of workers compensation coverage for agricultural workers. The Benson majority noted that at that time only seventeen states had mandatory coverage for agricultural workers, and expressed some concern that North Dakota farmers would suffer an economic disadvantage if required to pay workers compensation premiums. See Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 105-106. Since that time, there has been an overwhelming trend to include farm workers within mandatory workers compensation coverage, and in the ten years between 1979 and 1989 the number of states providing some degree of coverage for agricultural workers had risen from seventeen to thirty-nine. See 4 Larson, Workmen’s Compensation Law, App. A, Table 4, p. A-4-1 (1993). By 1992, forty-five states had some form of compulsory coverage for agricultural workers. Agricultural Workers at Risk, Workers’ Compensation Monthly, Vol. 12, No. 4, at 23 (1992). Thus, the argument that mandatory workers compensation coverage would saddle North Dakota farmers with a competitive disadvantage vis-a-vis farmers in other states is far less persuasive now than when it was rejected by the Benson majority in 1979.
In this regard, I note Justice Vogel’s cogent opinion in Johnson v. Hassett, 217 N.W.2d 771 (N.D.1974), in which this court held that the automobile guest statute was unconstitutional. Justice Vogel painstakingly set out the history of the guest statute, and documented the far-reaching changes in the law and in automobile insurance coverage since passage of the guest statute in 1931. See Johnson, supra, 217 N.W.2d at 772-774, 779-780. Noting that “[i]n constitutional law, as in other matters, times change and *209doctrines change with the times,” [Johnson, supra, 217 N.W.2d at 779], the court held that “[c]hanges in circumstances may make irrational a classification which was formerly a rational State purpose.” Johnson, supra, 217 N.W.2d at 772, Syll. ¶ 5. See also State v. Quill Corp., 470 N.W.2d 203, 213 (N.D.1991), rev’d, — U.S. -, 112 S.Ct. 1904, 119 L.Ed.2d 91 (1992) (constitutional law is to be applied in a “contemporary context,” “[i]n light of ... wholesale changes in the social, economic, commercial, and legal arenas”). Justice Vogel concluded that the significant changes since passage of the guest statute in 1931 had rendered the statutory classification “unreasonable,” “not based upon justifiable distinctions,” “arbitrary,” and “overinelu-sive.” Johnson, supra, 217 N.W.2d at 780. Similarly, I believe the sweeping changes in agriculture since 1979 and the increasing national trend toward mandatory workers compensation coverage for farm workers strengthens the conclusion in Benson that the agricultural exemption does not bear a close correspondence to the legislative purpose of the Act.
Chief Justice VandeWalle, in his special concurrence, suggests that legislation and the law need not be logical. However, the essence of equal protection is not logic, but fairness. It is the agricultural exclusion’s discriminatory lack of fairness, rather than the illogical nature of the legislative classification, that violates equal protection. Furthermore, if, as Justice Holmes proffered, “[t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience,” [Holmes, The Common Law 1 (1881) ], then our ongoing experience with the agricultural exclusion leads to the conclusion that, although perhaps justifiable at one time, it now violates equal protection. This court has in the past quoted with approval Justice Cardozo’s “poetic imagery” on the need for growth and change in the law:
“The inn that shelters for the night is not the journey’s end. The law, like the traveler, must be ready for the morrow. It must have a principle of growth.” Cardozo, The Growth of the Law 20 (1924), quoted in Lembke v. Unke, 171 N.W.2d 837, 843 (N.D.1969). See also Hastings v. James River Aerie No. 2337, 246 N.W.2d 747, 751 (N.D.1976).
I also find significant the legislative history of the agricultural exclusion. On four separate occasions in the 1970s, the Legislature considered bills that would have repealed the exclusion and included most agricultural employment in the definition of “hazardous employment” under Section 65-01-02, N.D.C.C. See 1977 Senate Bill 2547; 1975 Senate Bill 2034; 1973 Senate Bill 2149; 1971 House Bill 1153. In 1973 and 1975, these bills passed handily in the Senate, only to be killed in the House of Representatives. This legislative action suggests an erosion of the policy bases which may at one time have supported the legislative classification.3
I find no valid legislative purpose that closely corresponds to the statutory classification embodied in the agricultural exclusion. The exclusion unfairly and unconstitutionally discriminates against agricultural workers, and places severe restrictions upon their right to sure and certain relief that are not placed upon other similarly situated workers in this state. Because I can discern no valid legislative purpose in this record to justify that discrimination, I would hold that the agricultural exclusion violates Article I, Section 21, of the North Dakota Constitution.

CASES CITED IN MAJORITY OPINION

The majority opinion cites numerous cases from other jurisdictions to support its conclusion that the agricultural exclusion withstands constitutional scrutiny. I find those cases to be either distinguishable or unpersuasive.
At least two of the cases cited by the majority are wholly inapposite. Ross v. Ross, 308 N.W.2d 50 (Iowa 1981), and Eastway v. Eisenga, 420 Mich. 410, 362 N.W.2d 684 (1984), involved statutes markedly different from ours. The Iowa and Michigan stat*210utes at issue in those cases did not include a blanket exemption of agricultural workers. Rather, those statutes provided mandatory-coverage for agricultural workers in general, but excluded certain classes of farm workers. In Iowa, certain relatives of the farm employer were excluded. See Ross, supra, 308 N.W.2d at 53. In Michigan, the act excluded farm employers who did not employ a minimum number of workers for certain minimum periods of time. See Eastway, supra, 362 N.W.2d at 686-687. These eases presented constitutional challenges wholly different from those presented here. I might well agree that a statute that covers agricultural workers generally, but excludes relatives, exchange work, and small operations employing less than three workers, passes constitutional muster. However, the Iowa and Michigan cases do not support the majority’s conclusion here.
Another group of cases cited by the majority address the constitutional issue only in dicta, or give it such short shrift that they can hardly be considered persuasive. For example, the entire discussion of this issue in Cueto v. Stahmann Farms, Inc., 94 N.M. 223, 608 P.2d 535, 536 (Ct.App.1980), is as follows:
“Cueto also seems to argue that the exemption denies him equal protection. It does not; the exemption is not arbitrary, but has a reasonable basis.”
Similarly, in Fitzpatrick v. Crestfield Farm, Inc., 582 S.W.2d 44, 45 (Ky.Ct.App.1978), the court’s entire discussion consists of only two sentences:
“In order to dispose of this appeal in an expeditious manner, we will briefly comment that appellant’s third issue presented to us, namely, that the agriculture exclusion contained in the Workmen’s Compensation Act is violative of the equal protection clauses of the state and federal constitutions because of discriminatory classification of workers, is without merit. Furthermore, as was the situation in Peck v. Conder, Ky., 540 S.W.2d 10 (1976), we will not express an opinion with respect to the possible invalidity of a statute when such an issue was not presented on appeal to the circuit court from the board.”
The last sentence suggests that the court did not, in fact, determine the validity of the statute.
A similar result occurred in State ex rel. Hammond v. Hager, 160 Mont. 391, 503 P.2d 52 (1972). After a lengthy discussion of the constitutional issue, the court, in a decision signed by three judges, abruptly stated:
“In addition, in Montana we have a long line of cases holding that constitutional questions will not be determined unless their determination is essential to the disposition of the case.”
Hammond, supra, 503 P.2d at 57. Two judges concurred in the result, stressing that “no constitutional issue is properly before the Court in this proceeding.” Hammond, supra, 503 P.2d at 57 (Haswell and Daly, JJ., specially concurring).
The three remaining cases cited by the majority do appear to hold that the agricultural exclusions in the workers compensation acts of those states do not violate their respective state or federal equal protection clauses. See Collins v. Day, 604 N.E.2d 647 (Ind.Ct.App.1992); Otto v. Hahn, 209 Neb. 114, 306 N.W.2d 587 (1981); Baskin v. State ex rel. Worker’s Compensation Division, 722 P.2d 151 (Wyo.1986). My only response to these cases is that I do not find them to be persuasive, and I respectfully disagree with them.
I find far more persuasive the well-written opinion of the Supreme Court of Colorado in Higgs v. Western Landscaping & Sprinkler Systems, Inc., 804 P.2d 161 (Colo.1991) (en banc). In Higgs, the court considered the constitutionality of provisions of Colorado’s workers compensation act that treated agricultural workers differently than other workers. Specifically, the statute, although not excluding farm labor from coverage, included the value of room and board within the definition of “wages” for all workers except farm and ranch employees. Applying the more liberal scrutiny of the rational basis test, the court still concluded that the discrimination against farm and ranch workers violated equal protection. Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 165. The court specifically disagreed with the conclusion of the Colorado Court of Ap*211peals that the disparate treatment of farm and ranch employees was “reasonably related to the ‘longstanding governmental interest in assisting the agricultural industry.’ ” Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 163-164.
Particularly enlightening is the court’s discussion of the discriminatory nature of the classification:
“There undoubtedly are many categories of employees who work under contracts of hire and receive housing and other advantages from the employer, in addition to money wages, in consideration of their labor. Many of these employees perform services similar, although not necessarily identical, to the services performed by farm and ranch employees. The fact that, in contrast to the taxable waitress’s tips involved in Petrafeck [v. Industrial Commission, 191 Colo. 666, 564 P.2d 1097 (1976) ], section 8-47-101(2) utilizes the employee’s W-2 form as a proxy for a farm or ranch employee’s wages does not serve to render the value of housing and similar advantages received from the employer something other than part of the consideration for which the farm or ranch employee provides services under the contract of hire. The further fact that farm and ranch employees are usually employed on a seasonal basis does not provide a rational basis, in our view, for singling out this category of employees for disparate treatment through the application of a substantially reduced formula for computing their workers’ compensation benefits. Where, as here, the statutory scheme requires that the computation of workers’ compensation benefits for all employees except farm and ranch employees be based on cash wages as well as housing and similar advantages received from the employer, the statutory exclusion of the reasonable value of housing and similar advantages from the computation of workers’ compensation benefits for farm and ranch employees constitutes an artificial distinction lacking a reasonable basis in fact.
“We do not lightly declare a statute unconstitutional. We are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, however, that the disparate treatment accorded to farm and ranch employees with respect to the computation of workers’ compensation benefits is based on an arbitrary and illusory distinction that cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny under equal protection analysis.”
Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 165 (Emphasis added; footnote omitted). The comí continued:
“One of the salutary goals of equal protection of the laws is to prohibit a state from singling out a discrete group of persons for disparate treatment under the aegis of furthering what ostensibly might be viewed in isolation as a legitimate state interest. To be sure, assisting the agricultural industry is a legitimate governmental interest. The financial interest of the agricultural industry, however, is ancillary at best to the primary goal of the Workers’ Compensation Act, which, as previously noted, is to relieve injured workers from the adverse economic effects caused by disabling work-related injuries_ To sanction the disparate treatment accorded farm and ranch employees by section 8-47-101(2) would subject the employees’ equal protection rights to unrestricted legislative license and would thereby deprive the equal protection principle of much of its meaningful content. We decline to follow such a course.”
Higgs, supra, 804 P.2d at 166. I am in full agreement with the rationale expressed by the Colorado Supreme Court, and I believe it supports my conclusion that the agricultural exemption in Section 65-01-02(22)(a), N.D.C.C., violates the equal protection provision in Article I, Section 21 of the North Dakota Constitution.

PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

The Bureau urges that, if the agricultural exemption is declared unconstitutional, the ruling should be applied prospectively only, to give the Bureau and farm employers the opportunity to come into compliance with the new rule of law. This issue was also raised in Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 108. The Benson majority, relying upon Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D.1974), applied its holding to the parties in that case *212and to claims arising after a specified date following adjournment of the next legislative session:
“Today’s decision would undoubtedly have widespread and unknown ramifications for farmers in this State who have not voluntarily elected to secure coverage under the Act. Similarly, significant adjustments in the Workmen’s Compensation Bureau’s administration of the Act are required, likely involving additional personnel as well as funding authorization. To permit time for adjustments by all concerned and so that the legislature may study this field of law and possibly amend the Workmen’s Compensation Act to meet the criticisms of this opinion, we hold that this decision shall be applicable to the claim of Benson and to future claims arising out of injuries occurring to agricultural employees on and after July 1, 1981.”
Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 108. In Kitto, the court adopted modified prospectivity, applying a new rule of law to the parties in the instant case and to claims arising after some specified future date.4 This court has on numerous occasions followed the rule on modified prospectivity announced in Kitto. See, e.g., Soo Line Railroad Co. v. State, 286 N.W.2d 459, 466 (N.D.1979); Benson, supra, 283 N.W.2d at 107-108; State ex rel. Olson v. Maxwell, 259 N.W.2d 621, 623 (N.D.1977). See also Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. v. Commissioner of the Department of Insurance, 373 N.W.2d 399, 408 (N.D.1985) (recognizing continued validity of the modified prospectivity rule of Kitto).
There is no conflict between application of modified prospectivity by this court and the recent United States Supreme Court decisions on prospectivity. See Harper v. Virginia Department of Taxation, 509 U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2510, 125 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993); James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991). In those cases, the Court has abandoned modified prospectivity for new pronouncements of federal law. This court has previously recognized, in an opinion authored by Justiee VandeWalle, now Chief Justice, that James B. Beam was specifically limited to decisions changing federal law, and did not restrict state courts’ prospective application of state law. Muller v. Custom Distributors, Inc., 487 N.W.2d 1, 5 n. 7 (N.D.1992). Justice Souter, announcing the decision of the Court in James B. Beam, specifically limited its application to federal law questions. See James B. Beam, supra, 501 U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2443, 115 L.Ed.2d at 487-488. Those recent pronouncements by the United States Supreme Court do not preclude application of modified prospectivity in this case.
I would hold the agricultural exemption unconstitutional and remand to the Bureau to determine whether or not Haney’s injury was compensable. However, for the reasons expressed in Benson, and in light of the constitutional changes affecting the date when laws become effective, I would apply that holding to other parties only for causes of action arising on or after January 1st of 1996, following adjournment of the Fifty-fourth Legislative Assembly of the State of North Dakota. See Art. IV, § 13, N.D. Const. This would allow the Bureau and farm employers time to meet the requirements of the new rule, and give the Legislature an opportunity to respond to the constitutional mandate, as the Legislature did subsequent to Kitto v. Minot Park District, 224 N.W.2d 795 (N.D.1974).
MESCHKE, J., concurs.

. The agricultural employer who is sued in tort by an employee and against whom a devastating liquidating judgment is rendered might seriously belatedly question the wisdom of such special legislative treatment.

. One of the arguments made against mandatory coverage of farm employees is that the premium costs for voluntary agricultural coverage have been disproportionately high when compared to other industries. However, one cannot determine or estimate the cost of a mandatory inclusion of agricultural employers by what voluntary coverage costs now, because employers voluntarily covered tend to drop out of the system when they have had an employee file a claim, so as to avoid bearing the cost through increased premiums. This problem with voluntary coverage was recognized when attempts were made in the 1970s to repeal the agricultural exclusion. The legislative history indicates that premiums for voluntary agricultural coverage are artificially high because employers elect coverage at discounted premiums, and immediately discontinue coverage when a claim is filed, thereby avoiding the resulting premium increase. See Minutes of the Committee on Industry and Business "A," July 17, 1973, at pp. 3-4. Mandatory coverage for agricultural workers would solve this problem, with costs spread among all farm employers, including those with claims histories.

. Perhaps had the Legislature, when unable to agree on how to amend the workers compensation statutes to eliminate the agricultural exclusion, required that all farm employers have liability insurance the devastating consequences over the years to both the farm employer and the farm employee would have been lessened somewhat. Today, nothing less than workers compensation can properly provide equal treatment under our state constitution.

. Modified prospectivity is distinguished from pure prospectivity, where the court announces a new rule of law effective for claims arising after the date of decision, but not applicable to pending claims, including the case before it. See James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. 529, 535-36, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 2443-2444, 115 L.Ed.2d 481, 488-489 (1991).