North Dakota Supreme Court hears dispute over where Workforce Safety and Insurance may file appeals

BISMARCK, N.D. — The North Dakota Supreme Court on Thursday heard oral argument in file no. 20240283 over where Workforce Safety and Insurance (WSI) may file administrative appeals from final orders of an administrative law judge.

Jacqueline Anderson, special assistant attorney general representing WSI, told the court that the dispute turns on how to read North Dakota Century Code §65‑01‑16 together with the venue rules in chapter 28‑32 and §65‑10‑01. Anderson argued the district court erred in dismissing WSI’s appeal and said there would be “no ability for WSI to file a new appeal” if the dismissal stood, “so in essence, the decision is final.”

Dean Haas, counsel for appellee Russell Jones, said WSI filed the appeal in the wrong county and that the statutes and prior decisions point to the venue rules that govern claimant and employer appeals. “This appeal here was filed, we believe, in the wrong county,” Haas said, and he argued WSI is a party under chapter 28‑32 and thus must follow the venue provisions that chapter supplies.

The central legal question presented was whether the sentence added to §65‑01‑16 that says chapter 65‑10 “does not preclude the organization from applying to district court” permits WSI to file an appeal in any county where “the hearing or any part thereof is held” as provided by chapter 28‑32, or whether WSI must file in the counties identified in §65‑10‑01 (for example, where the injury occurred or where the claimant resides). Counsel and justices discussed the court’s prior decisions (including Westman and Decker), the text of the statutes, and the practical consequences if a claimant is not a North Dakota resident or was not injured in North Dakota.

Justice Daniel Crothers questioned appealability, noting that “typically, without prejudice, orders and judgments are not final and appealable.” Anderson responded that because administrative appeals must be taken within statutory timelines (30 days from the ALJ decision, with other statutory rehearing windows mentioned by counsel), the district court’s order dismissing the appeal without prejudice effectively left WSI without any forum to refile.

Counsel addressed telephonic or remote hearings and where such a hearing is “held” for venue purposes. Anderson argued that reading the statutes together — §65‑01‑16, §65‑10‑01 and chapter 28‑32 — supports WSI’s construction that venue may be a county where any part of the hearing occurred or, failing that, Burleigh County. Haas urged that the legislature’s wording and the history of appeals point to venue tied to the claimant or injury location.

The court did not rule from the bench. After argument the justices took the matter under advisement and adjourned. Anderson asked that the case be remanded to the Burleigh County District Court to decide WSI’s appeal on the merits.