Legal Opinion · Dissent

Anderson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance

North Dakota Supreme Court

Decided August 25, 2015No. 20140346Published

1DissentKapsner, Justice

[¶ 25] I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. Based on a review of this record, I do not believe the ALJ adequately explained her reasons for disregarding the medical evidence that was favorable to Anderson, particularly in light of the job description requiring traveling “approximately 90% of the time.”

[¶ 26] The goal of vocational rehabilitation is to return the disabled employee to “substantial gainful employment with a minimum of retraining, as soon as possible after an injury occurs. ‘Substantial gainful employment’ means bona fide work, for remuneration, which is reasonably…

2Cases cited8 opinions

  1. Bergum v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKFORCE SAFETY AND INSURANCENorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
  2. Svedberg v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKERS COMPENSATION BUREAUNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  3. Hoffman v. North Dakota Workers Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
  4. Holtz v. North Dakota Workers Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
  5. Genter v. Workforce Safety & Insurance FundNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006

3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

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

Powered by the Exa API