Anderson v. Workforce Safety & Insurance
North Dakota Supreme Court
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
- Bergum v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKFORCE SAFETY AND INSURANCENorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2009
- Svedberg v. NORTH DAKOTA WORKERS COMPENSATION BUREAUNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- Hoffman v. North Dakota Workers Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1999
- Holtz v. North Dakota Workers Compensation BureauNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 1992
- Genter v. Workforce Safety & Insurance FundNorth Dakota Supreme Court · 2006
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.