Court Opinion

ID: 9692871
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 16:09:43.979609+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:19:37.618846
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Justice,
concurring in result.
After reading the facts of this case and recognizing the various experts to which *776the Bureau referred Troy Beckler for examination, both at his request and at the Bureau’s own instance, it is difficult to conclude that the Bureau denied Troy a fair consideration of his claim. However, the Bureau was aware that Troy was -disputing his ability to return to work but it nevertheless terminated Troy’s benefits retroactively, i.e., the Bureau notified Troy on February 12 that his benefits were terminated as of February 5. Under these circumstances I agree with the majority opinion insofar as it concludes that procedure denied Troy due process but my concurrence in the result reached by the majority opinion is confined to these circumstances.
Although the Bureau argues that Troy “can show no prejudice to him as a result” of not receiving a notice of termination until several days after benefits had terminated, that argument is not persuasive. I suggest that it should be the Bureau which must show the lack of prejudice. The Bureau also argues that in most cases disability benefits will terminate when a claimant is given a full work release, and to require that a notice be given, or a hearing held, will result in additional benefits being granted despite evidence that they are no longer warranted. However, where, as here, the Bureau was aware that the claimant contended he could not work and requested an evaluation by a specialist in pain-induced disability [I do not concede that the Bureau was required to authorize such an evaluation in view of the other examinations authorized by the Bureau], I believe a notice should have been given prior to termination of the benefits. It is possible that such a requirement would lead to the payment of more benefits than are ultimately determined necessary, but the Bureau may adapt its procedures to hold any excess payment to a minimum.
ERICKSTAD, C.J., concurs.