Court Opinion

ID: 9878833
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-27 17:44:10.252284+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:42.035636
License: Public Domain

VandeWalle, Chief Justice, concurring specially. [¶ 20] I concur in the result in the majority opinion. I agree that the 2015 amendments to the Rate Classification Code 6208 was more than a clarification and interpretation of the 2013 and 2014 Codes and should only have prospective rather than retroactive application. [¶ 21] However, I write separately to note that insofar as the majority opinion may be read to suggest the determination of the appropriate classification is always a mixed question of fact and law to which no deference is given to the decision of WSI, I do not agree. We were told at oral argument that there are only 141 job classifications for all jobs covered by WSI. It is apparent then, that each classification will not be precisely tailored to the job of each employee. [¶ 22] Thus, in the instance where more than one particular job classification arguably may be appropriate, I believe we must give some deference to the experience and decision of WSI in classifying a particular job. If we do not give such deference it will be the judgment of the courts not that of WSI which will, contrary to the dictates of N.D.C.C. § 65-04-01, determine the appropriate job classification for each employee. [¶ 23] Gerald W. VandeWalle, C. J.