Court Opinion

ID: 9931162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 16:08:27.910739+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:00.648164
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      IN THE OFFICE OF THE
                                                                   CLERK OF SUPREME COURT
                                                                        FEBRUARY 8, 2024
                                                                    STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                  IN THE SUPREME COURT
                  STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA

                                 2024 ND 21

Mohamed Ibrahim Mahad,                                              Appellant
      v.
Workforce Safety and Insurance Fund,                                 Appellee
      and
U Haul Co. of North Dakota,                                       Respondent

                                No. 20230332

Appeal from the District Court of Cass County, East Central Judicial District,
the Honorable Wade L. Webb, Judge.

AFFIRMED.

Opinion of the Court by Bahr, Justice.

Mohamed I. Mahad, self-represented, West Fargo, ND, appellant; submitted
on brief.

Jacqueline S. Anderson, Special Assistant Attorney General, Fargo, ND, for
appellee; submitted on brief.
                                Mahad v. WSI
                                No. 20230332

Bahr, Justice.

[¶1] Mohamed Mahad appeals a district court judgment dismissing his
appeal of a Workplace Safety and Insurance (“WSI”) order as untimely. We
conclude Mahad failed to timely file his notice of appeal with the court. We
affirm.

                                       I

[¶2] Mahad reported an injury allegedly stemming from a workplace accident
in July 2022. In October 2022, WSI issued a decision denying benefits. Mahad
requested a hearing on the decision. After a hearing, the administrative law
judge affirmed WSI’s decision, concluding “there was a lack of medical evidence
to support those symptoms were caused by the work incident of July 6, 2022.”
WSI mailed its final order to Mahad on August 11, 2023. Mahad appealed the
order to the district court. He filed his notice of appeal with the court on
September 14, 2023. WSI moved to dismiss the appeal on the ground the court
lacked jurisdiction because Mahad did not timely file his notice of appeal. The
court dismissed the appeal.

                                       II

[¶3] “Failure to satisfy the statutory requirements for initiating an appeal to
the district court from an administrative decision prevents the district court
from obtaining subject matter jurisdiction over the appeal.” Ellis v. N.D.
Workforce Safety & Ins., 2020 ND 14, ¶ 7, 937 N.W.2d 513. “When jurisdictional
facts are not disputed, the issue of subject matter jurisdiction is a question of
law, which we review de novo.” Id. (quoting In re Estate of Vaage, 2016 ND 32,
¶ 14, 875 N.W.2d 527).

[¶4] “Any party to any proceeding heard by an administrative agency, except
when the order of the administrative agency is declared final by any other
statute, may appeal from the order within thirty days after notice of the order
has been given as required by section 28-32-39.” N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(1). “An

                                       1
appeal shall be taken by serving a notice of appeal . . . and by filing the notice
of appeal . . . with the clerk of the district court to which the appeal is taken.”
N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(4).

[¶5] WSI mailed the notice of the final order to Mahad on August 11, 2023.
Mahad filed his notice of appeal with the district court on September 14, 2023,
thirty-four days after WSI mailed the notice of its order. WSI’s mailing of the
notice of the order started the thirty day time to appeal. Ellis, 2020 ND 14, ¶ 8
(declining to extend the time to appeal to when the petitioner received the
order). The thirty day time to appeal was not extended because WSI mailed
the notice of the order. Id. at ¶ 9. Mahad filed his notice of appeal more than
thirty days after the mailing of the notice of the order. Therefore, the court
lacked jurisdiction to hear the appeal and correctly dismissed the case.
N.D.C.C. § 28-32-42(1); Ellis, at ¶¶ 8, 9, 11.

                                       III

[¶6] Having considered the parties’ other arguments, we conclude they are
unnecessary to the decision or are without merit. We affirm.

[¶7] Jon J. Jensen, C.J.
     Daniel J. Crothers
     Lisa Fair McEvers
     Jerod E. Tufte
     Douglas A. Bahr

                                        2