Court Opinion

ID: 9513636
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:38:33.629354+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:57.121294
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 40] In Unser v. N.D. Workers Compensation Bureau, in an opinion authored by Justice Maring, this Court unanimously held:
A failure to report income is, by the very nature of the violation, material to the Bureau’s ability to determine a claimant’s entitlement to benefits and to calculate the amount of benefits. By failing to report income a claimant impedes the Bureau’s process of determining eligibility.
Unser, 1999 ND 129, ¶ 18, 598 N.W.2d 89.
[¶ 41] Here, the Bureau specifically found that Wanner had failed to report income to the Bureau.
[¶ 42] The record clearly reflects that when asked to report whether he had “received money from any source other than from the Bureau,” Wanner did not disclose the money received from the sale of vegetables.
[¶ 43] The Bureau found, as record testimony clearly supports, Wanner bragged to an undercover investigator that he did not report to the Bureau the money he received from the sale of vegetables: “Of course, I don’t report any of the money from the vegetables to workers comp, either.” Finding of Fact 21.
[¶ 44] The Bureau specifically concluded, “Considered in the context of the circumstances, the greater weight of the evidence establishes that Wanner intentionally failed to report the money received for the sale of vegetables from his garden.”
[¶ 45] Based on the evidence presented, the Bureau concluded Wanner was selling “substantial quantities of vegetables.”
[¶ 46] The majority, at ¶ 20, asserts that the total unreported amount testified to “falls within a range of $129 to $160.” The Bureau made no such finding, and the transcript of the hearing before the Bureau (pp. 82, 85, and 86) reflects that Wanner himself testified to receiving from $256 to $266 from the sale of vegetables.
[¶ 47] The majority, at ¶ 21, characterizes the amount not reported as “minimal” and concludes it was not material.
[¶ 48] Clearly, our statutes do not reflect that the amount asserted by the majority or the larger amount admitted by Wanner are without legal significance. The smaller amount is legally significant, for example, under our theft statutes. See N.D.C.C. ch. 12.1-23. And our theft statutes recognize $250 as the amount raising a theft offense from a class B misdemean- or to a class A misdemeanor. N.D.C.C. § 12.1-23-05.
*775[¶ 49] It should also be remembered that the Bureau, when it found the “substantial” sales by Wanner, did not limit its findings to the amount admitted by Wanner. That Wanner sold more than he admitted is a reasonable inference from the evidence presented.
[¶ 50] Materiality of a misrepresentation is ordinarily a question of fact. Southern Equipment & Tractor Co. v. K & K Mines, Inc., 272 Ark. 278, 613 S.W.2d 596 (1981). Here, the majority impermis-sibly substitutes its judgment for that of the fact-finder. If the materiality of the misrepresentation were a question of law, the Bureau’s conclusion would be wholly supported by North Dakota law.
[¶ 51] Similarly, whether Wanner’s truck driving was “work” is a question of fact permissibly decided by the Bureau.
[¶ 52] I agree with the reasoned opinion of the district court, which agreed with the Bureau that Wanner willfully failed to report income and work and the misrepresentations were material:
As pointed out by the Bureau the Administrative Law Judge, hereafter “ALJ”, made extensive findings relative to whether Wanner willfully failed to report income or work activities to the Bureau. Concerning the alleged failure to report to the Bureau his income from gardening activities the ALJ found credible and most damaging Wanner’s statement to the Bureau’s investigator that he had not been reporting such income. Concerning Wanner’s work activities for the Rollers the ALJ found significant that some of his activities involved doing the same work Wanner used to do— driving truck.
[[Image here]]
The ALJ carefully considered the evidence and had the opportunity to observe the witnesses and assess their credibility. The ALJ noted that Wanner acknowledged reading the monthly reports and did not claim he was confused or did not understand the instructions or advice for completing the forms or that his responses to the Bureau’s questions were mistaken. After carefully considering the record, this Court finds there is substantial evidence from which a reasoning mind reasonably could have determined that Wanner willfully made false statements to the Bureau when he failed to report the income from the sale of his garden vegetables or his work activities at the Rollers.
[[Image here]]
Wanner’s credibility and honesty with the Bureau are crucial in a determination of his claim. In this case the nature of Wanner’s injury involves assessments that are not readily subject to objective measurement. The amount of pain and Wanner’s abilities are dependent in large measure upon his subjective report. If Wanner is willfully being dishonest with the Bureau it impairs the Bureau’s ability to properly determine his claim.
A failure to report income is by its very nature material to the Bureau’s ability to determine a claimant’s entitlement to benefits. Unser v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 129 ¶ 18, 598 N.W.2d 89. A failure to report work activities similarly impedes the Bureau’s process of determining eligibility. Snyder v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 2001 ND 38 ¶ 18, 622 N.W.2d 712. While this Court agrees with Wanner and finds that the circumstances surrounding Wanner’s false statements are not as egregious as those in Unser, supra, and Snyder, supra, the conclusion must still be the same. Wanner’s false statements were sufficiently material to warrant the termination of future benefits and there *776is sufficient evidence to support the Bureau’s decision.
[¶ 53] I would affirm.
[¶ 54] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER, J., concurs.