Legal Opinion · Dissent

Haugenoe v. Workforce Safety & Insurance

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided April 22, 2008No. 20070099Published

1DissentSandstrom, Justice

[¶ 51] I respectfully dissent. The Workforce Safety and Insurance order is consistent with the statute.

[¶ 52] Workforce Safety and Insurance paid nearly a quarter of a million dollars in benefits for Haugenoe, including the costs incurred because of the medical malpractice. The legal malpractice recovery represents what should have been recovered in the medical malpractice action. WSI seeks fifty percent of the legal malpractice recovery, reduced by attorney’s fees and its share of expenses.

[¶ 53] Although some states allow sub-rogation of legal malpractice claims arising out of medical…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. State Ex Rel. Workmen's Compensation Bureau v. ClaryNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  2. Ness v. St. Aloisius HospitalNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1981
  3. Blaskowski v. North Dakota Workmen's Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1986
  4. Virginia Municipal Group Self-Insurance v. CrawfordSalem County Circuit Court · 2004

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API