Court Opinion

ID: 9514120
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:44:40.481785+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:12.328223
License: Public Domain

KAPSNER, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[¶ 26] I, too, concur in parts II and III of the majority opinion and respectfully dissent from part IV. I would reverse the judgment requiring repayment of benefits received.
[¶ 27] “Under our standard of review, we affirm if a reasoning mind could reasonably have decided the agency’s findings were proven by the weight of the evidence from the entire record.” Victor v. Workforce Safety & Ins., 2006 ND 68, ¶ 13, 711 N.W.2d 188.
[¶ 28] In part IV, the majority explains why a reasoning mind could not have reasonably and logically come to both Conclusions 9 and 10. However, I do not understand that internal inconsistency to provide WSI with a second opportunity to explain a factual inconsistency, not a legal inconsistency. The statements cannot be material if they are not willfully false. Forbes v. Work*551force Safety & Ins. Fund, 2006 ND 208, ¶¶ 13-14, 722 N.W.2d 536.
[¶ 29] CAROL RONNING KAPSNER