Court Opinion

ID: 9843793
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 02:43:22.841394+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:55.560411
License: Public Domain

*38KAPSNER, Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 34] I respectfully dissent from Part III of the majority opinion.
[¶ 35] As the majority correctly notes, the Kallhoff court refused to apply N.D.C.C. § 65-05-09.2 to Kallhoff because of an ambiguity in the statute, as it was then written, and in the legislative history of the statute. Kallhoff v. N.D. Workers’ Comp. Bureau, 484 N.W.2d 510, 514 (N.D.1992). “Without a clearer statutory expression by the legislature, we refuse to apply the statute to Kallhoff, who was ‘already in the fund’ before July 1, 1989.” Id. In so holding, the Kallhoff court also applied the then-normal rule of construing the workers compensation statutes liberally in favor of the worker based upon the presumed purpose of the statute.
In resolving this dispute, we rely on our longstanding tradition of construing the Workers’ Compensation Act liberally in favor of the injured worker so as to avoid forfeiture and afford relief. The purpose of the Workers’ Compensation Act is remedial and should be construed liberally in favor of the injured worker. Liberal construction resolves reasonable doubt in favor of the injured worker because it was for the workers’ benefit that the Act was passed.
Id. at 513 (citations omitted).
[¶ 36] Since Kallhoff, the legislature has clearly stated its intent to apply N.D.C.C. § 65-05-09.2 to persons in Ted-ford’s circumstances. The legislature has statutorily admonished this Court against assuming a statute presumably intended to benefit injured workers should be liberally construed to benefit those injured workers. In 1995, the legislature amended N.D.C.C. § 65-01-01 to read: “This title [Workers’ Compensation] may not be construed liberally on behalf of any party to the action or claim.”
[¶ 37] With a clear legislative expression of intent and a directive that interpretations favoring the injured worker are not to be presumed, it remains necessary to determine if there are any impediments to application of the statute. I disagree with the majority that Gregory v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 94, 578 N.W.2d 101 [Gregory II], is such an impediment. In Gregory II, this Court held that disability benefits could not be terminated under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-09.3. Id. at 110. However, the application of N.D.C.C. § 65-05-09.2 to Tedford does not operate to terminate his benefits. In its present form, N.D.C.C. § 65-05-09.2 acknowledges the holding of cases like Gregory II by providing that “[a] conversion by the organization from offsetting an employee’s social security disability benefits to offsetting an employee’s social security retirement benefits under this section may not result in a decrease in the aggregate amount of benefits the employee receives from both sources.” As stated in Saari v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1999 ND 144, ¶ 17, 598 N.W.2d 174:
The thread connecting Gregory II, Jensen, 1997 ND 107, 563 N.W.2d 112 and Heddon, 189 N.W.2d 634 (1971) is the Bureau was not permitted to retroactively apply new legislation to discontinue or reduce benefits the claimants had been receiving, or already had a vested right in receiving.
[¶ 38] After application of the social security retirement offset, Tedford will receive the same amount of money he was receiving when his disability benefits were offset by his social security disability benefits. Tedford has not shown any authority for determining that this is impermissible. I would reverse the district court and reinstate the decision of WSI to offset Ted-fórd’s social security retirement benefits against his disability benefits under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-09.2.
*39[¶ 39] CAROL RONNING KAPS-NER, J.