Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, workforce safety and insurance shall contract
with the office of administrative hearings for the designation of administrative law judges who
shall conduct evidentiary hearings and issue final findings of fact, conclusions of law, and
orders. Rehearings must be conducted as hearings under chapter 28-32.
\n
65-02-23. Workforce safety and insurance fraud unit - Continuing appropriation.
The organization shall establish a workforce safety and insurance fraud unit. The
organization may employ investigators and licensed attorneys, or contract with a private
investigator whenever feasible or cost-effective, to investigate and review any alleged case of
fraud against the fund by employers, injured workers, or providers of medical or other services,
including activities described under section 65-04-33 or 65-05-33. The unit shall refer cases of
fraud to the organization for the imposition of administrative penalties and may refer them to the
appropriate authorities for prosecution. Money in the workforce safety and insurance fund is
appropriated on a continuing basis for payment of costs associated with identifying, preventing,
and investigating employer or provider fraud. The organization may establish a process to
charge investigative costs against the rate class of an employer being investigated and to credit
any recoveries to that rate class.
\n
Notes of Decisions
Davenport v. Workforce Saf. & Ins. Fund, 2013 ND 118 (N.D. 2013).
· cites it 2× “[¶ 9] Davenport requested a hearing on all his claims, and an independent administrative law judge (“ALJ”) was designated under N.D.C.C. § 65-02-22.1 to issue a final decision on those claims.”
State Ex Rel. Workforce Saf. & Ins. v. Larry's on Site Welding, 2014 ND 81 (N.D. 2014).
· cites it 2× “[¶ 13] “When an independent ALJ issues final findings of fact, conclusions of law and order under N.D.C.C. § 65-02-22.1, courts apply the same deferential standard of review to the ALJ’s factual findings as used for agency decisions.”
WSI v. Felan, 2021 ND 97 (N.D. 2021).
· cites it 2× “The conclusions of law and order of the agency do not sufficiently explain the agency’s rationale for not adopting any contrary recommendations by a hearing officer or an administrative law judge.”
Curran v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins., 791 N.W.2d 622 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 2× “This case predates the enactment of N.D.C.C. § 65-02-22.1. Therefore, this appeal *623 comes from the final decision of WSI, not the administrative law judge.”
Inwards v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins., 2014 ND 163 (N.D. 2014).
· cites it 2× “§ 65-01-16(4) & (7), or an administrative law judge designated by the Office of Administrative Hearings has issued a final order as provided in N.D.C.C. § 65-02-22.1, N.D.C.C. §§ 65-01-16(4) & (7) (providing that a decision is only final if a timely reconsideration or rehearing…”
State v. Steffes, 2010 ND 232 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 2× “[¶51] Mary Muehlen Maring Carol Ronning Kapsner FOOTNOTES 1: This case predates the enactment of N.D.C.C. § 65-02-22.1. Therefore, this appeal comes from the final decision of WSI, not the administrative law judge.”
WSI v. Badger Roustabouts, 2021 ND 166 (N.D. 2021).
· cites it 4× “1 (“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law, workforce safety and insurance shall contract with the office of administrative hearings for the designation of administrative law judges who shall conduct evidentiary hearings and issue final findings of fact, conclusions of law,…”
Bishop v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins., 823 N.W.2d 257 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The conclusions of law and order of the agency do not sufficiently explain the agency’s rationale for not adopting any contrary recommendations by a hearing officer or an administrative law judge.”
Mickelson v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins., 820 N.W.2d 333 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See N.D.C.C. § 65-02-22.1. After an administrative hearing, the ALJ affirmed WSI’s denial of benefits, concluding Mickelson failed to establish he suffered a compensable injury during the course of his employment.”
Zaiser v. Jaeger, 2012 ND 221 (N.D. 2012).
· cites it 2× “The conclusions of law and order of the agency do not sufficiently explain the agency’s rationale for not adopting any contrary recommendations by a hearing officer or an administrative law judge.”
Zimmerman v. North Dakota Workforce Saf. & Ins. Fund, 2010 ND 42 (N.D. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See N.D.C.C. § 65-02-22.1 (initiated measure approved November 4, 2008, and providing for designation of ALJ from office of administrative hearings for evi-dentiary hearing and for issuance of final findings of fact, conclusions of law, and orders).”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.