Court Opinion

ID: 9513287
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:33:45.305677+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:05:48.365641
License: Public Domain

HUNKE, District Judge,
concurring.
[¶ 23] Justice Meschke’s scholarly opinion correctly reaffirms that the ultimate question of whether the statutory presumption in NDCC 65 — 01—02(18)(d) has been rebutted is one of fact to be determined by the hearing officer or the administrative agency involved, as the case may be. Burrows v. North Dakota Workers’ Comp. Bureau, 510 N.W.2d 617 (N.D.1994); Flermoen v. North Dakota Workers Comp. Bureau, 470 N.W.2d 220 (N.D.1991); Sunderland v. North Dakota Workmen’s Comp. Bureau, 370 N.W.2d 549 (N.D.1985). If the fact-finder’s decision is supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the order of the agency must be affirmed by both the district court and the supreme court. NDCC 28-32-19(5) and 28-32-21. I believe there is sufficient evidence in the record to sustain the hearing officer’s finding that the presumption has been rebutted.
[¶24] The reversal and remand proposed by Justice Meschke does not disturb those basic premises but only requires the hearing officer to employ certain procedural mechanisms in the fact-finding process to “explain” and “clarify” the ultimate decision of whether the statutory presumption prevails or has *839been overcome. Accordingly, I concur in the reversal and remand for that purpose.
[¶ 25] Maurice R. Hunke, District Judge.