informal hearing in North Dakota

2023Steele, at 701 (construing administrative rule to preserve its validity by interpreting it to require Workmen’s Compensation Bureau to conduct or hold a formal hearing if requested by a party aggrieved by the result of an informal hearing). 11 VI In enacting the AAPA, the North Dakota legislature “set out the due process requirements for administrative agencies.” Steele, 273 N.W.2d at 700 - 01.

2023N.D.C.C. § 28-32-01(1) (“‘Adjudicative proceeding’ means an administrative matter resulting in an agency issuing an order after an opportunity for hearing is provided or required.” (emphasis added)); Singha, 1998 ND 42, ¶¶ 30, 32 (remanding “the case to the Board for proceedings consistent with the requirements of the A.A.P.A.” because the Board denied Singha’s application “without complying with the procedural formalities required by the A.A.P.A.”); Steele, 273 N.W.2d at 701 (“We are not ruling out the use of an informal hearing (a non-evidentiary hearing) for making an initial determination

2023N.D.C.C. § 28-32-01(1) (“‘Adjudicative proceeding’ means an administrative matter resulting in an agency issuing an order after an opportunity for hearing is provided or required.” (emphasis added)); Singha, 1998 ND 42, ¶¶ 30, 32 (remanding “the case to the Board for proceedings consistent with the requirements of the A.A.P.A.” because the Board denied Singha’s application “without complying with the procedural formalities required by the A.A.P.A.”); Steele, 273 N.W.2d at 701 (“We are not ruling out the use of an informal hearing (a non-evidentiary hearing) for making an initial determination

2022See also Singha, 1998 ND 42, ¶ 26 (discussing Steele, at 701). [¶15] Section 54-57-05, N.D.C.C., provides that the OAH director shall adopt rules of administrative practice or procedure to implement N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32 and to aid in the course and conduct of all administrative hearings and related proceedings under N.D.C.C. ch. 28-32.

2011State v. Brewer, 444 N.W.2d 923, 924-26 (N.D.1989); State v. Anderson, 427 N.W.2d 316, 320 (1988); First Am.

2011State v. Brewer , 444 N.W.2d 923, 924-26 (N.D. 1989); State v. Anderson , 427 N.W.2d 316, 320 (1988); First Am.

2011State v. Brewer, 444 N.W.2d 923, 924-26 (N.D.1989); State v. Anderson, 427 N.W.2d 316, 320 (1988); First Am.

2011State v. Brewer , 444 N.W.2d 923, 924-26 (N.D. 1989); State v. Anderson , 427 N.W.2d 316, 320 (1988); First Am.

1985See Aus v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, supra. This Court recently stated that a claimant’s right to an evidentiary hearing is not limited to only those instances where the claimant can make a “further showing” in addition to his original claim, but that a claimant is entitled to an evidentiary hearing “whenever a dispute of material fact exists, including instances where the factual dispute arises from the original claim.” Manikowske v. North Dakota Workmen’s Compensation Bureau, 373 N.W.2d at 887 .