Court Opinion

ID: 9513372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:34:49.066386+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:50.356394
License: Public Domain

VANDE WALLE, Chief Justice,
dissenting.
[¶ 17] I dissent. Relying on a subsequent statute not in effect at the time of the FCE test to reinforce its construction, the majority transforms an applicable statute into one which apparently had little or no meaning insofar as false tests are concerned. The majority glosses over the definition of “statement” in N.D.C.C. ■§ 65-05-33(1), prior to amendment: “statement” includes “test results, or other evidence of loss, injury or expense.” I do not read the legislative history as to the reason for the amending legislation as does the majority. The Bureau’s comment states that “[sjpecifieally” the amendment includes willful misrepresentation of the person’s physical condition by deceptive conduct which misrepresents the person’s physical ability. The comment also asserts that “[t]his deceit is punishable in other jurisdictions as malingering or as a false statement.” I read the comment to imply that it could be similarly “punished” under North Dakota law but that the Bureau was seeking specific declaration to that effect. Thus, I believe this is an amendment intended to clarify existing law under Efferiz v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 525 N.W.2d 691 (N.D.1994).
[¶ 18] We should not discourage clarification of statutes with the threat that clarifications may be used to render useless existing law.
[¶ 19] When the statute is clear and unambiguous, we look only to the face of the statute to determine legislative intent, In re Craig, 545 N.W.2d 764 (N.D.1996), and when the statute is clear and unambiguous, we cannot disregard it under the pretext of pursuing legislative intent. Adams County Record v. Greater North Dakota Ass’n, 529 N.W.2d 830 (N.D.1995). We should not create ambiguity where none exists by reference to another statute although I agree we construe statutes as a whole. A plain reading of the definition of statement includes “test results.”
[¶ 20] The majority accuses the Bureau of attempting to “shoehorn” Zueger’s performance on the FCE into the statutory definition of a false statement and thereby “bootstrap” the more severe penalties for false statements. I suggest the majority opinion illustrates the majority’s dislike for penalties — penalties the application of which a majority of the court continues to attempt to avoid by statutory construction if at all possible. See Ali v. North Dakota Workers Compensation Bureau, 1998 ND 146, 583 N.W.2d 115 (holding unreasonable refusal to partici*536pate in FCE is not an intentional obstruction for purposes suspending right to claim compensation under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-28); Hopfauf v. North Dakota-Workers Comp. Bureau, 1998 ND 40, 575 N.W.2d 436 (holding ALJ did not specifically find false statements to be “willful” for purposes of forfeiting future benefits under N.D.C.C. § 65-05-33).
[¶ 21] It is elementary that under separation of powers the decision to enact the penalty provisions is one for the legislative branch and the decision to seek those remedies is one for the executive branch of government. It is not the function of the judicial branch to circumvent those decisions.
[¶ 22] I would affirm the judgment of the district court affirming the order of the Bureau.
[¶ 23] SANDSTROM, J., concurs.